Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Geophysical Survey

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government will now undertake a comprehensive geophysical survey of the Colonial Territories.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): This method of survey is not suitable for general application. It is, however, being used in limited areas where it is practicable, and the selection of such areas is being kept under constant review as new geological information is being established by colonial geological surveys.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of our African territories, in particular, have not had a geological survey, never mind a geophysical one? Can he give an assurance that in those particular areas he will in future carry out an intensive geophysical survey? In view of the Commonwealth Conference, there is need to exploit all our resources, particularly in the African territories.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that a geophysical survey must follow after the general geological survey, which we are pushing on as quickly as we can, but which is an immense task.

Development Corporation Schemes

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many schemes of the Colonial Development Corporation have been liquidated since the advent of the new administration in October, 1951.

Mr. Lyttelton: Five undertakings have been abandoned since October, 1951, namely: British Honduras Stock Farm; Seychelles Fisheries; South Atlantic Sealing Co., Ltd.; Keningau Cattle Ranch; British Somaliland Camel and Sheep Abattoir and Trading Investigation.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Secretary of State not agree, in view of our economic position, that it is more imperative than ever that we should employ the Colonial Development Corporation for these schemes? Can he give us an assurance that this Government are not weakening upon the policy of the Labour Government since 1945 in this respect?

Mr. Lyttelton: Nothing but damage is done to colonial development when schemes which do not turn out to be possible are undertaken, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any new schemes have been started since the present Government came into office?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is another question.

Mr. Hale: It may be another question, but would the right hon. Gentleman answer it in courtesy to the House? Can he tell us what statement has been made to the House, and what particulars have been given and what information has been furnished, to support the thesis that these schemes ought to be abandoned?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Report of the Colonial Development Corporation is not prepared by the Government, but it will give the hon. Member all the information he requires about the abandonment of the schemes. I have no information here about new schemes, but I shall be very glad to answer that question in full if it is put on the Paper.

Passenger Steamers (Registrations)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what parts of the Colonial Empire have a regular passenger service of steamers registered in foreign countries but none of the steamers registered in the Empire and Commonwealth.

Mr. Lyttelton: None, Sir.

Civil Aviation Conference

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement on the Colonial Civil Aviation Conference held in September.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and of Civil Aviation on 29th October last, and the statement issued to the Press on 13th September at the conclusion of the Conference. I am sending a copy of the latter statement to the hon. Member.

Mr. de Freitas: Are not such statements most unimaginative? Surely the Colonial Office has not grasped the really enormous and important part that aviation can play in the development of under-developed areas. Will the Secretary of State study the Air League's Memorandum on the subject?

Mr. Lyttelton: I will certainly study any document. I have already studied most of the documents.

Mr. de Freitas: What about the first part of my supplementary question, on the unimaginative statements which have been issued?

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many instances and for what offences was corporal punishment inflicted in Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya, respectively, in 1938, 1945, 1951 and to the latest available date of this year; and in how many cases this punishment was awarded by native courts.

Mr. Lyttelton: Complete information is not available in the Colonial Office. I am therefore consulting the Governors and will communicate with the hon. Member when I have their replies.

Mr. Sorensen: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of "complete information." Can he give us a rough idea whether the number of times that corporal punishment has been inflicted has increased or decreased?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am sure the hon. Member will sympathise with me when I say that I really must not deal in rough information.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Copper Mines (Dispute)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made by the Government of Northern Rhodesia in the settlement of the dispute in the copper mines.

Mr. Lyttelton: The employers and the African Mineworkers' Union agreed to the appointment of a conciliator and work was resumed on 10th November. The attempt at conciliation broke down, but work continues. Both parties are willing to submit the claim to arbitration, and consultations are taking place about terms of reference.

Mrs. White: While appreciating that the preliminaries in these matters take a little while, can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication when it is likely the name of the arbitrator is to be announced?

Mr. Lyttelton: That, of course, depends on the agreement of the two parties, but perhaps the hon. Lady will be assured when I say that the United Kingdom is quite willing to appoint the arbitrator if the parties agree.

Uranium Deposits

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what quantities uranium has been found in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lyttelton: A workable uranium deposit has been discovered and exploratory work is in progress. I cannot disclose the quantities that might be available from this source.

Mr. Dugdale: Is it not a fact that it was stated that large quantities were available—stated, I gather, by a spokesman of the Colonial Office—and can the right hon. Gentleman verify whether that is so?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not know what is in the ground. I cannot disclose the quantities of uranium, and it would not be in the public interest to disclose how much ore is available from this source.

Constitutional Changes (Discussions)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions are to be held between representatives of


Northern Rhodesia and the Secretary of State on the constitution of Northern Rhodesia in January; who is to attend; and what proposals for constitutional changes it is intended to discuss.

Mr. Lyttelton: As I explained in replying to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on 22nd October, I hope to resume discussions with both Africans and Europeans some time after the Federation Conference. The exact date has not yet been decided nor has any agenda been drawn up.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Welensky has stated that such discussions will be held with the African and other representatives after the conference on the subject of internal constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia, and is he aware that such discussions would be welcome if their object were to implement the proposals made by the Northern Rhodesian Government in April about extending African representation on the Legislative Council?

Mr. Lyttelton: These discussions will be resumed after the conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Development Plans

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now announce his plans for the future development of Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is not possible within the scope of Question and answer to cover an issue of this magnitude. I reported to the House on 7th November the plans of the Government of Kenya for development in many fields. I am also sending the hon. and learned Member a copy of addresses by the Governor and the Finance Member giving further detailed information to the Kenya Legislative Council.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the documents he is going to send me, I should like to ask him, is it not a fact that the Government delayed eight months after receiving the expert and authoritative report of Sir Philip Mitchell, then the Governor of Kenya [HON. MEMBERS: "No."], asking for a Royal Commission, and is not that largely the cause of the present disturbances in Kenya? Will the right hon.

Gentleman see that the economic causes underlying the present disturbances are resolved as soon as possible?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Gentleman is under an entire misapprehension on all these points. First of all, the original dispatch of Sir Philip Mitchell was concerned with the three East African territories and had to be submitted to the East African High Commission as a preliminary. There has been no avoidable delay since the final dispatch was received—I think in May, but I have not the exact date. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman is also under an entire misapprehension when he ascribes any of the present troubles to this delay over the appointment of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. The White Paper to which reference has been made was handed to the Press last night; it is not available in the Vote Office; it is not even available in the Library, and when one asks for it one is told one must sign a green paper and in due course it will be provided. My point of order is this. Is it right that this document, of such an important character in the present crisis in Kenya, should be handed to the Press and that Members of Parliament should not be given opportunities of having it?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that straight away. I will have to look into the facts. It may be that it is not a Parliamentary Paper, but that is a matter I should have to investigate.

Mr. Shinwell: Will it be permissible to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is that the Press have been issued with a copy of this statement and yet it is not available to hon. Members.

Mr. Lyttelton: May I say that I am surprised if the Paper is not available in the Vote Office, because I gave instructions that it was to be put in the Vote Office. I will willingly look into any causes for the delay. I had some intimation that this was to be raised, and I was in communication with the Vote Office a few minutes ago.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. Is it not the fact that it is not available in the Vote Office, not available in the Library and not available in the House,


and that after today we shall have no chance of putting Questions on colonial affairs and on this important matter before the Christmas Recess—or, indeed, much before Easter; and that, therefore, this mistake will deprive us of discussing this whole matter unless some means can be devised of having a special debate upon this exceedingly important document?

Mr. Lyttelton: There will be an opportunity of putting a Question on the Paper for next Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I cannot carry this discussion any further. I am not aware of the facts; I heard about them only this moment. I will look into it.

Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that when I rang his private office a few moments ago to ask about this I was told that they were not sure that there were any stocks of this document in the Colonial Office; and would he be a little more careful to see that a major document of this kind is made available to Members of this House? He really is treating the House with some discourtesy if he thinks we are not interested in this matter.

Mr. Lyttelton: I must deny any wish to behave discourteously in any way. I have given instructions that it was to be in the Vote Office, and I am quite willing to look into any reasons why the instructions have not been carried out.

Mr. Dugdale: Why could it not have been issued as an ordinary White Paper in the ordinary way so that it could have appeared in the Vote Office? Why should there be this particular difficulty about this particular Paper.

Mr. Lyttelton: There is no difficulty at all.

Mr. Dugdale: But it is not in the Vote Office.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is going to be in the Vote Office.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot carry this matter any further now. Clearly we do not know the facts about it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Having regard to the serious issue of fact between the Minister and the rest of the House, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Arrested Persons

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the persons in Kenya who have been arrested, screened and not charged with any offence are being detained up to date; where they are being detained; and what are the physical and other conditions of their detention.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the places of detention of those in custody on 28th November. Otherwise I cannot add to the reply which I gave on this subject last week.

Mr. Hughes: Why are these people being detained in custody without charge? Is that not contrary to our system of law; is it not improper; and will the right hon Gentleman have them either charged of released as soon as possible?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Gentleman must consult the precedents of this thing. Everybody will be charged as quickly as possible.

Following are the details:

Persons in custody at midnight, Friday, 28th November, were detained as follows:

Nairobi Area Prison
…
1,381


Nairobi Police Station
…
230


Rift Valley Prison
…
1,742


Rift Valley Police Station
…
367


Nyeri District Prison
…
346


Nyeri District Police Station
…
657


Nyanza Prison
…
442


Nyanza Police Station
…
38


Coast Prison
…
368


Coast Police Station
…
52


Northern Frontier Prison
…
13

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the number of cases heard to the most recent convenient date under the Emergency Laws in Kenya, the number of persons convicted and the number of persons acquitted.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Governor of Kenya states that this information will need to he abstracted from the records of each separate magisterial court and police


station. That is being done and I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that at this time there is not available to the Government of Kenya the record of convictions and acquittals for alleged serious crimes against emergency legislation at trials which have taken place in the last two or three weeks? If he is seriously suggesting that information is not available, will he find out why it is not and who is to blame? Is he really trying to conceal vital information from the House? Is it a fact that scarcely a newspaper has a record of a single acquittal?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have nothing to add. I have given the total of those who have been tried and acquitted. It will take a long time—the Kenya Government have plenty to do—to obtain all the details.

Mr. Hale: It will not take long to find the number of acquittals.

Emergency Legislation

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what emergency legislation, rules and orders are now in force in Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: It would not be possible to give an account of all this legislation within the scope of a Question and answer. If the hon. and learned Member wants information on any particular point, he will, no doubt, put down a Question.
Copies of all but one of the Ordinances passed to deal with the threat to law and order before the proclamation of a state of emergency have been placed in the Library of the House. The exception is the Societies Ordinance, of which the final version is not yet available. Copies of the Emergency Regulations are also in the Library. Orders made under the Emergency Regulations are published in the Kenya Official Gazette, copies of which may be consulted in the Colonial Office Library.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware—I must put it in that form—that the particular matter upon which I want information is this: are any steps being taken to revise these rules and orders so as to make them more consonant with the needs of Kenya today?

Mr. Lyttelton: I really cannot answer a question in those terms. There is a mass of regulations here, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a Question on specific points I can perhaps give him an answer.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to state how many persons were arrested for screening under these Orders? A week ago he said he had not got that information.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Gentleman's memory is slightly at fault. I do not believe the total number of people screened will be available; I do not think I can give that information.

Mr. Brockway: Are there so many?

Mr. Lyttelton: The figure I did give was that 13,000 people had been detained after screening.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my Question asking what are the physical and other conditions of their detention.

Mr. Speaker: That was the last Question, not this Question. We are now on Question No. 7.

Repatriated Kikuyu (Accommodation)

Mr. Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures have been taken by the Kenya Government to deal with the reception and accommodation in the Kikuyu reserves of Kikuyu repatriated from European farms.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Kikuyu families were moved in small groups and on arrival in the districts to which they were repatriated were met by their chiefs and headmen, who had previously made arrangements for their accommodation with relatives. As accommodation was available on arrival there was no need for a reception camp.

Mr. Irvine: I am grateful for the answer the right hon. Gentleman has given, but is it not a fact that these people from European farms have been less affected by Mau Mau than other tribesmen; and does it not follow from that that it may merely aggravate the position


if they are sent back to the reserves without adequate preparation being made for them, and without adequate provision made for accommodation in which they may live?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. There have been disquieting signs lately that Mau Mau have penetrated to the so-called squatters.

Royal Commission

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any further statement to make concerning the membership of the Royal Commission to inquire into the situation which has arisen in Kenya.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now secured the full personnel for the Kenya Royal Commission; and how far these include Africans and non-Europeans.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not yet in a position to make a further statement concerning the membership of the Royal Commission which is to inquire into land and population problems in East Africa as a whole. No time is being lost—

Mr. Dugdale: Nonsense.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is a quite unfounded interjection.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Eight months.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is not eight months. The report had to be referred to the High Commission Territories.
No time is being lost, but I am most anxious to secure the best people available.

Mr. Craddock: In view of the fact that the decision to set up this Commission was taken several months ago, does he not think that is an awfully long time without having reached any finality; and, in view of the very gloomy picture this morning, will he approach his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so that we can be allotted a day for a debate on the problems of Kenya before we break for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is an entirely different question, which is not a matter

for me. I can only say that I know of no method by which the appointment of these gentlemen to the Royal Commission could be accelerated. I told the House last week that all communications with potential members of the Commission have been conducted by telegram.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that the personnel have not yet been decided upon, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that at least one or two representatives of the non-Europeans in that area are approached?

Mr. Lyttelton: I answered a Question from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on that subject. An African is being invited. So far, the first African who was asked was unable to accept for various reasons.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As it is over five months since the right hon. Gentleman announced in the House his intention of setting up this Royal Commission, and, we gather, many more months since it was suggested by the late Governor of Kenya, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention to make an announcement on the membership of the Commission before the House rises for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Lyttelton: I must say in candour that I do not know when the whole thing will be completed, but I hope to make an announcement about some of the members. The delays, I agree, are regrettable, but they are unavoidable.

Mr. Griffiths: Since there is in the country and, I think, in the House considerable concern about this delay—and the right hon. Gentleman has indicated to us that he is having difficulty—may I ask what are the difficulties which have prevented the completion of the Commission?

Mr. Lyttelton: I will give an example. I have sent an invitation to a certain gentleman—I think I had better not mention his name, as it would not be fair—and I have followed that up with three telegrams—I know that he is in an over-sea territory, although not in one of these territories—and I have had no answer. The gentleman in question would be a most desirable member of the Commission.

Agricultural Workers (Wages)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the minimum wage payable to agricultural workers in Kenya; and what is the average wage.

Mr. Lyttelton: There is no statutory minimum wage for agricultural workers. The average wage is 25s. per month plus rations valued at 20s. per month, housing and free medical attention. In many cases the worker is also allowed to cultivate a plot on his employer's farm on his own account.

Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases farm workers are being still paid a wage of 6d. a day for a 60 or 65 hour week, and does he not consider that such conditions are instrumental in bringing about the present situation in Kenya more than anything else? Can he say what steps he is taking to improve that situation?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have no information to support the figures which the hon. Member has put forward. I have given the average wage. This is a matter of extreme difficulty, and one of the matters to be discussed with Sir Evelyn Baring.

Mr. Wigg: Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold the view that the state of affairs in Kenya has nothing to do with economic circumstances, in view of his statement that the average wage is 25s. a month?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman has put words in my mouth which I never used. I have said that the Mau Mau secret society was not the direct result of economic pressure.

Mr. Shinwell: Can not the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests and good name of this country, condemn this disgraceful rate of wages prevalent there?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not going to answer a question couched in these general terms. Obviously this is a matter which has to be investigated very carefully.

Sir R. Acland: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement circulated by such an authority as the Church Missionary Society, which very definitely says that the economic and social conditions are a major cause in bringing this thing to an endemic stage?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can only say that the opinion that I have expressed, and which I continue to express, is not only held by me but by everyone in Government service in Kenya, including the district officers.

Education (Colour Bar)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the son of Mr. Veljee Devshi has been excluded from the Government Primary School for Europeans in Nairobi after having attended St. Mary's School, Finchley, and Beckford Primary School, Hampstead, to the satisfaction of the teaching staff.

Mr. Lyttelton: As I told the hon. Member in my letter of 14th October, schools in Kenya are at present organised by race and it is not the practice for an Asian to be admitted to a European school any more than it is for a European to be admitted to an Asian school.

Mr. Brockway: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable in education and other spheres to end the colour bar completely, and that one of the most effective means of doing this would be to allow a child who has been in English schools in this country to go into an English school in Nairobi when he returns there?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Gentleman knows what my sentiments are in this matter; that these are highly desirable objectives.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the colour bar, and, if the Government have one, what they propose to do towards its implementation?

Mr. Lyttelton: Our difficulties are very much those of the last Government in these matters. It is desirable to remove these discriminations, but one cannot proceed either at one's own pace or at that of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a psychological and moral factor—a non-economic factor—which has some relationship to Mau Mau?

Trial (Defence Facilities)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the protests by defence counsel in important trials in Kenya against the lack of proper facilities for the defence; and what action he has taken thereon.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have received no such protests. But on Monday last the Governor reported that apart from an application, which the Supreme Court of Kenya rejected, for the case to be heard in Nairobi, Mr. Pritt had made only one protest about lack of facilities and had said that he was satisfied with the arrangements made as a result of that protest.

Sir R. Acland: As the inquiry is being held in what can properly be described as a kind of bush outpost, is it not self-evident that defence counsel cannot possibly have the facilities which counsel ought to have for conducting a trial of this kind? Is it not right that, as "The Times" said today, the eyes of the world are upon us in this sort of thing?

Mr. Lyttelton: The views of the hon. Baronet are not shared by Mr. Pritt.

Sir R. Acland: But Mr. Pritt has protested against this place being used.

Mr. Lyttelton: Mr. Pritt said he was satisfied with the arrangements which have been made as a result of his protest. That was the only protest which has been received. The reason why the trial is being held in a remote part instead of in Nairobi is fear of intimidation of the witnesses.

Mr. Peter Wright (Expulsion)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the further statement sent him by Mr. P. Strethill Wright; and what further action he and the Kenya Government are prepared to take in view of Mr. Wright's denials and requests.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am consulting the Government of Kenya about some of the points raised by Mr. Wright. In the meantime, I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 26th November.

Mr. Hale: But Mr. Peter Wright was deported. Surely the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a sufficiently urgent matter to he communicated by

cablegram so that information shall be available to the House? This most distinguished gentleman is at the moment out of work in this country, where he does not intend to seek work as he wants to get back to Kenya. He is waiting, and the House is about to rise for the Recess.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There has been a lot of correspondence about his case. Has the Secretary of State himself seen Mr. Peter Wright, and, if not, will he do so in order to discuss his case with him?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not seen Mr. Peter Wright, and, unless there are some grounds of which I am at present unaware, I see no reason to intervene.

Mr. Griffiths: Without passing judgment on facts that we know, there is a continuing controversy in the Press, and the information seems to be that Mr. Wright was a very good officer but he is alleged to have done something about which there is controversy. In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision and invite Mr. Peter Wright to see him? Otherwise, the controversy in the Press may create the impression that a wrong has been done him and that it is not being rectified.

Mr. Lyttelton: I will certainly reconsider the matter when I get the information for which I have asked from the Kenya Government.

Devonshire Declaration

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the terms of the Devonshire Declaration with regard to the respective interests of the various races in the future of Kenya; and how far this still remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Lyttelton: In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to Part II of Command Paper No. 1922 of July, 1923. As regards the second part, the basic principles of Her Majesty's Government's policy remain as stated by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in the House on 13th December, 1950.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to refer Command Paper No. 1922 of 1923 to the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, who, in the


debate on 15th November, stated that the new policy was the policy for all the inhabitants of Kenya and not for the local inhabitants, whose interests were declared to be paramount by the Devonshire Declaration in 1923? Will he have some discussion with the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs as to how far there has been a variation of policy or whether the Minister of State has been brought up to date in connection with policy enunciated 29 years ago?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman has put a gloss on statements which they do not bear.

Administration Staff (Kikuyu Language)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of the Kenya administration speak the Kikuyu language.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am asking the Governor for this information and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware there is a wide impression that very few members of the administration in Kenya know the Kikuyu language and that this has lead to a lack of contact between the administration and the Kikuyu people with a consequent lack of appreciation of what was happening?

Mr. Lyttelton: The point is well taken, but is one which we shall look into. It cannot be put right very quickly.

Mr. Benn: As the Colonial Secretary seems unable to answer any Question without asking the Governor, would he arrange with hon. Members from all sides of the House to have an opportunity of meeting the Governor himself while he is in London?

Mr. Lyttelton: The first part of the Question gives currency to an idea which is entirely wrong. It is, in fact, quite impossible for the Colonial Office to keep statistical information over the whole field of all these Colonies which have governments of their own. I will try to arrange what the hon. Gentleman suggests in the second part of his supplementary.

Mr. Harold Davies: In view of the tone and temper of the answers of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask permission to read an extract from the Report

which was not available to Members of this House, namely the Mitchell Report, Colonial No. 290, on page 23 of which there is—

Mr. Speaker: We have had this already I think.

Miss Ward: rose—

Mr. Davies: On a point of order. I thought I was right in asking the Minister if he was aware of something in the Report which he has given to us. Am I in order in asking the Minister whether he is aware of this sentence in the Report, which is not available to us, but which, after a great struggle and some effort, I managed to extract from the Colonial Office?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. Member was trying to reopen the controversy about the non-availability of this paper, which was dealt with at some length. The hon. Member can put his point if he puts it shortly.

Mr. Lyttelton: On a point of order. Am I right in supposing that it is not in order to ask this question on the question of how many members of the Kenya administration speak the Kikuyu language?

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that I have not asked the question, I do not know how anyone in the House could say what it is about.

Mr. Speaker: We must clear this up. We are now at Question No. 30, and I take it that the hon. Member's supplementary is relevant to that Question?

Mr. Davies: Yes, it is very relevant.

Mr. Speaker: What is it?

Mr. Davies: It is relevant because the Report suggests that
it is imperative to keep clearly in mind that the problem is a human problem, compounded of the needs, hopes and fears of a great mass of people, most of whom are at the present time sadly handicapped by ignorance. ill health, poverty and inexperience for the world which has rushed upon them with a bewildering suddenness.
Will the Minister, therefore—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that question can be related to the narrow point of language.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of order?

Mr. Rankin: Further to the point of order raised by the Secretary of State, I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is clear that the effectiveness of an administration depends on a knowledge of the language of the people who are under their control?

Mr. Speaker: On that interpretation of his question about the language the hon. Member could bring in the whole issue of the administration.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware how glad we on this side of the House are that we have a Secretary of State for the Colonies who speaks with a sense of responsibility?

Kikuyuland (Cadastral Survey)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to make a cadastral survey of Kikuyu-land.

Mr. Lyttelton: I doubt whether a cadastral survey would be appropriate in the Kikuyu reserve, where individual rights to land are not generally recognised by the people and the boundaries of holdings are not for the most part clearly set out. There may, however, be a case for the recording of presumptive titles in certain places; and the matter is one which I am proposing to discuss with the Kenya Government.

Mr. Rankin: Would the Minister not agree that if we are going to get down to the land problem in Kenya, we have got to deal with the question of fragmentation, litigation and transfer, and all that that means, which can only be done through a cadastral survey?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think that a cadastral survey is appropriate. These are questions into which the Royal Commission will have to look.

Land Settlement

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of the Kikuyu tribe it is proposed to settle on land outside the tribal reserves.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am asking the Governor for information on this and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that plans are being discussed in Kenya to employ suspect Kikuyu, who apparently will not have been tried, on tsetse-ridden land outside tribal reserves in conditions which look as though they may be approaching forced labour?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have asked the Governor to have consultation with me on many of these matters, and this is one on which I shall be talking to him.

Mrs. White: On a point of order. May we then have a special session of Questions after the right hon. Gentleman has seen the Governor?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

FALKLAND ISLANDS DEPENDENCIES

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why £47,000 is being spent this year on additional bases in the Falkland Islands Dependencies to support any claims to sovereignty.

Mr. Lyttelton: Her Majesty's Government consider it essential to maintain British sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies. Local revenues are insufficient to support the bases necessary for this purpose.

Sir E. Keeling: I quite agree, but considering that we have been in possession of these dependencies for very many years, would it not have been better for the Estimates to speak of defending our rights or resisting other people's claims.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think perhaps that is a good point.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that this method of obtaining our just claims in these dependencies is a very much more successful way of doing it than some of the old fashioned strong-arm methods recommended to us by his hon. Friends when they were on this side of the House and we were the Government?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the extreme


strategic importance of maintaining a passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific in the event of the Panama Canal ever being blocked?

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE AND MALAYA

Retail Co-operatives

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the urgent need in Singapore to develop retail co-operatives to combat the rapidly increasing cost of living; and what development of co-operatives is planned by the Government of Singapore in 1952–53 from the budget of approximately £7,000.

Mr. Lyttelton: There is intense competition amongst traders in Singapore and the development of retail cooperatives is slow. At the end of 1951 there were four societies and two others are being formed. The Adviser on Cooperation is to visit Singapore early next year for discussions with the Governor.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the amount allocated by the Government of Singapore for the development of the co-operatives works out at l½d. per head of the population per year? Does he think that this is adequate to develop societies of this character, which can do a great deal to prevent an increase in the cost of living?

Mr. Lyttelton: With regard to the second part of the Supplementary Question, I think that it would be doubtful to pitch it too high. The movement is weak and we shall try to stimulate it. I have every sympathy with the general object of the hon. Gentleman's Question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While we are grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy, will he study the very remarkable results obtained in Ceylon by the cooperative movement and see if larger expenditure would not enable him to do the same kind of thing in Singapore?

Mr. Lyttelton: The conditions are quite different. We have to be very careful about the co-operative movement in Singapore.

Rubber Industry (Arbitration Award)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the names of the two assessors and the scale of

tasks to be performed by the workers were omitted from the arbitration award of 24th October, 1952, in the Malayan rubber industry.

Mr. Lyttelton: The chairman of the arbitration board has stated publicly that he alone signed the report because the two assessors unfortunately could not agree over the inclusion of an appendix concerning, the scale of tasks.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the omission of the names of the assessors from this award and of the tasks which were expected from the workers has created a great deal of suspicion among the workers, especially when they were led to believe that there was to be no reduction in wages and the day after the award of 10 cents a day reduction took place?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think that much too much is made of the difficulty arising in the case of arbitration procedure. The fact remains that the ordinary processes of collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration were followed in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Uganda (Cotton Price Stabilisation Fund)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of the committee responsible for the administration of the Uganda Cotton Price Stabilisation Fund; how they are appointed; what directive is given them with regard to the disbursement of excess funds; and for what objects disbursements have been made in the past two years.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Uganda Government themselves administer this fund, which by resolution of the Legislative Council was closed last year at a total of £20 million. The balance of approximately £5 million was credited to the African Development Fund, for the use of which a Select Committee of the Legislative Council has recommended the allocations which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. That Committee consisted of two official and all the unofficial members of the Legislature.

Mr. Beswick: This is an enormous sum of money. Is there not a tremendous amount of work which could be done now


in Uganda with the expenditure of a very small sum of money for technical assistance and so on? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a proportion of the Fund is allocated for that purpose?

Mr. Lyttelton: When the hon. Member sees the list he will realise that his general ideas are being carried out.

Following is the information:

The Select Committee has recommended the following allocations from the Uganda Cotton Price Assistance Fund:



£


Acquisition of Ginneries
1,000,000


Special Scholarships Funds
200,000


Development of Technical Training
2,000,000


Expansion of Primary Teacher Training
152,030


Community Development
500,000


Local Government and Community Development Training Centre
350,000


Commercial College
8,000


Loan to Nakivubo Sports Grounds
61,000

Approximately £725,000 still remains to he allocated.

Tanganyika (Wemeru Tribe Evictions)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the terms of the resolution adopted by the Political Committee of the United Nations on the appeal of the Wemeru against eviction from land in Tanganyika; what decision was reached; and by what votes.

Mr. Lyttelton: So far this question has been considered only by the Fourth (Trusteeship) Committee of the General Assembly, which adopted a draft resolution inviting the United Kingdom to return to the displaced Meru the lands from which they were moved. I have placed a copy of the full text, which is long, in the Library of the House. The voting in the Committee was 32 for the draft, 17 against and three abstentions. The draft has yet to be considered in a plenary session of the Assembly.
In any case, the Trusteeship Agreement grants full powers of administration in Tanganyika to the United Kingdom; and in this particular matter the policy of the Tanganyika Government has been debated in Legislative Council and supported by all unofficial speakers, including the senior Unofficial African Member.

Mr. Brockway: In view of this decision of the Political Committee of the United Nations against these evictions, will the right hon. Gentleman hold up any further action until the matter has come before the plenary session of the United Nations?

Mr. Lyttelton: I must have notice of that. I do not know if action is being taken at this moment.

BRITISH GUIANA (SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures are being taken to deal with the severe overcrowding of schools in British Guiana.

Mr. Lyttelton: This problem has recently been examined by a local committee. Their recommendations will be considered by the Government to be elected next year under the new Constitution.

Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that, according to an official report published recently, some of the classes contain more than 100 scholars? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very urgent that something should be done to improve the conditions?

Mr. Lyttelton: I agree with the hon. Member. The Colonial Development and Welfare Fund has provided a large sum of money to assist the project.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA

Higher Education

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed that any new college for higher education in Central Africa shall be confined exclusively to Africans.

Mr. Lyttelton: No decision on the issues involved in the establishment of such a college will be taken until the Governments concerned have received and studied the report of the Commission of which I gave particulars in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's Question of 26th November.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the interests of having partnership between the races, it is of great importance that the college should be open to all races?

Federation

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which African representatives have been invited to attend the conference next January on Central African Federation.

Mr. Lyttelton: In Nyasaland the African Protectorate Council has been invited to nominate delegates but has declined. In Northern Rhodesia a similar invitation is being issued to the African members of the Legislative Council.

Mrs. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if, when these invitations were made, the undertaking, which was given in this House by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, was at the same time conveyed to the persons concerned?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Lady is referring to the fact that their attendance did not carry with it a previous commitment. That is so.

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what debates have been held in the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland on Central African Federation since the publication of the draft Federal Scheme; in which provincial councils the scheme has been discussed; what expressions of opinion on the scheme have been made by these councils; what debates on the scheme have been held in the Nyasaland African Protectorate Council; and whether these bodies have expressed opinions on the scheme.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council discussed the scheme on 3rd and 4th July last, and I have put a copy of the Report of the debate in the Library. I have no report yet of a debate on the scheme in the Nyasaland Legislative Council. In Northern Rhodesia only the Central Province Council has, so far as I know, discussed the scheme. Again, I have put a copy of the record of this meeting in the Library.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the scheme with members of the Nyasaland Provincial Councils. I understand that the African Protectorate Council of Nyasaland debated the Federation issue on 4th Decem-

ber. Reports of this debate will be placed in the Library as soon as they are received.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the fact that opportunities were not given to the Provincial Councils of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia to discuss reports from the delegates to the July conference on the grounds that they had not attended the conference, has the Minister any views on how this African delegation, if they come to the next conference, can have any other mandate than they had before, not having had the opportunity of discussing the new mandate, and is he also aware that all African bodies which have discussed it have rejected federation, including the conferences of the chiefs? What steps is he taking to induce the African representatives to come to the conference and to discuss the scheme from a fresh point of view?

Mr. Lyttelton: These very complicated questions are being discussed now.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say if any African has yet endorsed the proposals for federation?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes.

Mr. Harold Davies: Would it be in order, now that we have come to the end of Colonial Questions, to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will try to protect the rights of private Members to see that in future they get White Papers and economic documents on the Colonies and elsewhere at the same time as the Press have them.

Mr. Speaker: We have already dealt with that matter. There was one complaint about one document and I said that I would look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Dartmouth Cadets (Flying Experience)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cadets from the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, have been commissioned during the past five years; and how many of them have qualified to fly.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): Cadets in the Royal Navy are granted commissions when they


reach the confirmed rank of sublieutenant. If officers in the electrical and supply branches, who normally do not fly, are omitted, 954 Dartmouth cadets have been commissioned during the past five years. Of these, 54 have so far qualified to fly, and others will do so in due course.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend really think that these figures show that Her Majesty's Navy is following the modern trend and training for warfare? Will he really stress the importance to the Admiralty of training as many young officers as possible to learn how to fly?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Admiralty are very well aware of the value of learning to fly, but this scheme is only at its beginning, although the numbers are increasingly encouraging, and will improve in the next year or two. I can assure him that we are doing everything to try to improve the figures.

Mr. de Freitas: How do these figures compare with foreign naval colleges like Annapolis, or the Russian Naval Academy?

Mr. Thomas: I must have notice of that question.

Captain Ryder: What are the facilities provided for gaining experience of long. range shore based aircraft?

Mr. Thomas: I am glad that that question has been raised, but I must have notice of it.

Ordnance Factory Inspectors (Committee's Report)

Mr. Swingler: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consult with the Minister of Supply with a view to establishing an inter-Departmental inquiry into the numbers and duplication of inspectors in Royal Ordnance factories, as recommended by the Select Committee on Estimates.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: My Department is already in consultation with the Ministry of Supply. The reply to the Select Committee's recommendation will, of course, be addressed to the Committee.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that an inter-Departmental committee has been established already to inquire into the

matter? What form does the Minister suggest it should take?

Mr. Thomas: It means that we are in full consultation with the Ministry of Supply on the recommendations of the Committee, which, after all, were made only a fortnight ago.

Dockyard Apprentices

Brigadier Clarke: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of dockyard apprentices terminate their work in Her Majesty's Dockyard at the end of their apprenticeships.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Apprentices become liable for National Service at the end of their five-year apprenticeship, and the latest entry due to have completed their National Service are those who joined in 1945 and completed apprenticeship in 1950. Of this entry, about one-quarter have left Admiralty employment, and just over another fifth have not yet returned to the dockyards.

Brigadier Clarke: Will my right hon Friend give these apprentices some incentive to remain in Her Majesty's service after the very expensive training that they have to undergo? Is it not a bad thing for the country if 25 per cent. of them leave before they go on to become useful workers in the dockyards?

Mr. Thomas: I will see what can be done about it, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that 77 per cent. of those who completed their apprenticeship in 1949 remained in the Admiralty service, and that only 23 per cent. left it.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee last year decided that something should be done to encourage apprentices to remain on after they have fulfilled their apprenticeship? Has anything been done, arising out of that report?

Mr. Thomas: Certainly something has been done. The hon. Member should realise that the reply has had to be sent not to this House but to the Committee itself, according to the usual custom of this House.

Mr. Albu: How do the figures compare with the figures of those who leave apprenticeships in industry outside?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot give the comparison without notice.

Requisitioned Properties

Colonel J. H. Harrison: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many houses and factories have been derequisitioned by his Department in the last year; and how many of each still remain requisitioned, together with their covered floor space.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Thirteen houses and two factories have been released from requisition by the Admiralty in the last year. Ninety-eight houses and seven factories are still retained. The aggregate covered floor space comprised in the factories still retained is 145,000 square feet. Details of the floor area of the retained houses are not readily available.

Colonel Harrison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for those figures, may I ask if he is aware that sometimes the public think that these houses or factories are not needed and are not being used to the best advantage by his Department? Will he look into that point?

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that the houses and factories mentioned in my answer are very definitely needed. The factories are chiefly used for storage, in respect of which we are extraordinarily short in the Admiralty.

Dr. Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend intending to release Queen Anne's Mansions at an early date?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot answer that question at the moment.

Shipbuilding Programme

Mr. W. J. Edwards: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) to what extent the shipbuilding programme of the Navy is to be cut as a result of the most recent decision to reduce the speed of the re-armament programme;
(2) to what extent the works programme of his Department is to be cut as a result of the most recent decision to reduce the speed of the re-armament programme.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I regret that I am not in a position at the moment to give positive answers to these Questions. and I must ask the hon. Member to wait until the Navy Estimates for 1953–54 have been finalised and presented to the House. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House in

answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question on Thursday last, the Government are anxious to afford the fullest discussion at the appropriate time on the adjustments which arise from the review of the defence programme.

Mr. Edwards: One would have assumed by the Prime Minister's statement last week and the replies which he gave to supplementaries that the Government had made their mind up how the defence programme was going to continue from now onwards. Surely, if the Prime Minister is able to come to the House and make a statement such as he did last Thursday, it should have been obvious that the Service Departments ought to be able to tell us what differences will take place in Service policy. May I ask, therefore, if the Government have decided to reduce defence expenditure, and they come to the House and say that they have no idea of how it is going to be done, whether that is not gross mismanagement?

Mr. Thomas: I am anxious to give the hon. Gentleman any information I can, because of how helpful he was to me in the past. The Prime Minister said that certain general decisions had been reached. Those have now to be worked out, and they are being worked out in the Admiralty, in all other Service Departments, and in the Ministry of Supply. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the details at this stage for which he asks.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House on what basis the decision was reached? Was there not some detailed examination of the position before the Prime Minister announced to the House the decision of the Government?

Mr. Thomas: A great deal of detailed examination took place before the final decision was taken, but that is not the same thing as working out the whole matter in practice now that the decision has been taken. This is bound to take time, and the right hon. Gentleman is unreasonable to expect an answer so soon.

Mr. Burden: Can my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, in the foreseeable future, full employment will be maintained in the Royal Dockyards? Will he also realise that in most dockyard towns work in the Royal Dockyards is a major


method of employment and that these matters are of very great concern?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no reason to think that employment in the dockyards in the immediate future will be anything but full.

Mr. H. Morrison: May we take it from the First Lord that what has happened is that a decision has been taken without knowledge as to how it is to be implemented?

Mr. Thomas: If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman should not take it as anything of the kind. He must realise that decisions are taken on general grounds after a good deal of examination, but the actual details take time to work out, and that I have not yet got the answer for the House.

WEAR SHIPYARDS (OUTPUT)

Mr. Wiley: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the estimated 1952 output of the Wear shipyards.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The Wear shipyards are expected to complete in 1952 about 184,600 gross tons of merchant shipping.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman now agree with the Wear shipbuilders that this year's output will be the lowest for 13 years? Is he aware that that fact is very disturbing to us in Sunderland?

Mr. Thomas: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the figures which I have do not bear out the statement which he has just made. The figures for this year which I have given him are, to begin with, higher than those of 1948, and if two ships which were expected to be completed in December had been finished, the completion of which was postponed until next month, the figure for this year would have been higher than for any year since, except 1951.

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that he has previously given a figure to the House that has been corrected by the Wear shipbuilders, who have again stated that the Admiralty are at fault and that this year's output will be the lowest for 13 years? As he says, his present figure

does not agree with the figures which the Wear shipbuilders give, but they still maintain it, and they are disturbed at the complacency of the Admiralty.

Mr. Thomas: There is no question of complacency. I stand by the figure I have given to the hon. Gentleman. Two ships expected to be completed in December have been prolonged into the coming month, which brings them into the following year. Otherwise the figure would he that which I gave previously.

LONDON AIRPORT EXTENSION (BATH ROAD)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Buswick: ,—To ask the Minister of Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to make a statement as to whether London Airport is to be extended to the north side of the Bath Road.

The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With permission, I will answer Question No. 89.
Yes, Sir. Careful analysis of the results of a programme of practical experiments recently concluded by my Department has shown that the additional amount of traffic which could be accepted by extending the aerodrome north of the Bath Road would not justify the expenditure and disturbance so incurred.
I have, therefore, decided not to proceed with the plans for the extension, and to release from safeguarding the area north of the Bath Road, apart from the approach paths to the existing runways on London Airport.

Mr. Beswick: While thanking the Minister for that statement, may I ask if he is aware that it will lift a great pall of anxiety from 650 families whose homes are immediately threatened with destruction, and many hundreds more who were indirectly affected? Is he aware, further, that this is a matter in which the skill, ingenuity and perseverance of the officers of his Department will save up to £10 million in capital investment, and that the whole House will be grateful to them for the efforts they have made in this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure we all appreciate the tribute which the hon.


Member has paid to the technical members of my staff. I am glad to relieve the anxiety of a large number of families. It may, of course, be inevitable that a small number of properties may be affected by the requirements to keep the approaches to the runway south of the Bath Road clear, but otherwise the weight is lifted, as he says, from most people.

Mr. Gough: Has the decision not to go north of the Bath Road been a factor in deciding to develop Gatwick?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, the need for an alternate airport under different weather conditions from London remains and would be quite unaffected by this decision. However big London Airport might be, a diversionary airport for bad weather would still be necessary.

HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES (WHITE PAPER)

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): With the permission of the House and your permission, Sir, I will make a brief statement in explanation of a White Paper (Cmd. 8707) issued today.
The White Paper contains the records of past discussions between Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and the Union of South Africa about the future of the three territories of Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland during the period 1909 to 1939.
A publication covering broadly similar ground is being issued simultaneously by the Union Government. The Union Government's publication follows an undertaking given by the Prime Minister of the Union, Dr. Malan, in the South African Parliament in February this year, that he would publish the records of past discussions between the two Governments on this subject.
Subsequently, the Union Government sought the concurrence of the United Kingdom Government in the publication of certain of the documents. The United

Kingdom Government saw no objection to the proposal and decided to take the opportunity of making available to Parliament here their own records of those discussions.

Mr. Gordon Walker: May I say that the publication of this White Paper is very welcome, that I am, naturally, familiar with these documents and that I have no doubt that they will show that all British Governments, regardless of party, are committed to pledges which make it unthinkable that any British Government could concur, as things are, in the transfer of the territories. May I ask why this story is only brought down to 1939 by the White Paper, and would the hon. and learned Gentleman seek an opportunity of making public any developments between 1939 and the present day?

Mr. Foster: The reason why it stopped at 1939 was that the inter-Governmental discussions stopped in that year. Since then there have been no developments except that the matter has been referred to, I understand, in speeches by Dr. Malan. As far as Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are concerned, this matter rests on the basis of the pledges given on many occasions in the last 40 years by various Governments of the United Kingdom, the last of which was the answer in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22nd November, 1951. In regard to making public, for instance, the account of the conversations which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) had, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

Mr. C. Davies: May I ask for a definite statement from Her Majesty's Government, because the Government and the people of this country are under a definite obligation as trustees for the peoples of these territories? Is it the intention of the Government to carry out the obligations of that trust?

Mr. Foster: The answer was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22nd November and also, for instance, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) when he was Secretary of State. I have nothing to add to that.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Considered in Committee. [3rd Allotted Day.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 6.—{COMMISSION'S VEHICLES TO REQUIRE LICENCES BUT TO BE FREE FROM TWENTY-FIVE MILE LIMIT.)

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, to leave out "three," and to insert "twelve."
I hope the fact that we have had two statements today will not set a precedent for preceding the Guillotine proceedings on the Transport Bill with Government statements. Today, they were commendably brief and hon. Members exercised a self-denying ordinance in not putting many supplementary questions, but I hope it will be the intention of the Government to avoid making statements as far as possible on the days when the Guillotine operates.
Sir Charles, I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take, with this Amendment, the following one to line 35, also to leave out "three," and to insert "twelve."
This is a non-controversial Amendment which I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept by making a concession, and thereby start off the third day of the Guillotine procedure with the Committee in a good humour.
As the Clause stands the Commission will have to apply for licences for its vehicles within three months of the enactment of the Bill. That seems to us to be far too short a period for the Commission to make application for the large number of licences which it will require to continue to operate the vehicles still in its possession. Quite clearly, within a period of three months, all the vehicles of the Commission will not be sold off, and as I do not see any proviso to that effect I take it that whether the vehicles are put into operable units for disposal or not, until they are disposed of there will have to be application for licences. Be that as it may, there will be the residue of vehicles which it is not proposed to sell off and which the Commission will be entitled to retain, and for which

it will in any case require to apply for the special A licences and will obtain them automatically.
Under the 1947 Act, the Transport Commission was not required to hold the ordinary licences for the operation of its goods vehicles. That was because the Commission was given a partial monopoly of long-distance commercial road haulage. It was, therefore, considered—I think, quite rightly—that it should be the Commission itself which should determine the number of vehicles it required to operate. It was further given the power to grant permits to those road operators that it considered could continue to operate, and, in effect, the Commission itself determined the number of vehicles operating on long-distance commercial road haulage—that is, for hire or reward.
The principle, therefore, of the licensing system to restrict the number of vehicles on the road did not apply to the Transport Commission. It quite rightly did not apply, because, as I have stated, it was a matter for the Commission itself to determine. After all, the Commission is a public concern, responsible to the Minister and, through him, to Parliament, and if it did not carry out its function of providing an integrated efficient public service for the community, it could be held to account. In that way, if there were an excess of vehicles operating, the Commission could be called to account.
Quite clearly, however, it was in the interests of the Commission to operate no more vehicles than it required to operate in order to provide the service which it was required to provide. In effect, that is how it worked out, because the Commission has succeeded in reducing the number of vehicles employed in carrying the same amount of goods. That is to say, the volume of goods carried today by R.H.E. vehicles is being carried in comparably fewer vehicles than would have carried the same volume of goods under the previous system of operation. A certain number of vehicles has been laid aside and taken off the road. This has contributed to greater public safety, which has been further enhanced by the operation of so many of the vehicles during the night hours.
As the Minister is ruthlessly destroying the system which was set up under the 1947 Act, and is wrecking the British


Road Services and depriving the Commission of the partial monopoly which it enjoyed, on the face of it it would appear that the Commission should now be liable to apply for and should be obliged to obtain, licences for the vehicles that it operates. I say that on the face of it that appears logical and reasonable, but if we look further into the matter and examine it, and particularly if those hon. Members who were present during our discussions yesterday afternoon—[Interruption].

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member cannot be heard with all this talking going on.

Mr. Charles Pannell: May I point out, Sir Charles, that there is far more noise coming from the other side than appears to be coming from this side?

The Chairman: I did not say where the noise was coming from, but there was a lot of noise.

Mr. Davies: Under the Guillotine, argument is curtailed, and it may be that Members on the other side do not wish even to listen to the arguments which we are willing to put forward on this side.
On the face of it, it would appear reasonable for the Commission to have to apply for licences, but in our debates yesterday evening it emerged that the Commission is limited to the number of vehicles that it can operate. The Commission is limited to six-fifths of the vehicles which it was operating when it came into being on 1st January, 1948. We had long discussions on the matter yesterday, and the Clause in question passed the Committee stage. The figures were given by the Minister, and it appeared that under Clause 4 the Commission will be able to operate 4,678 vehicles.
3.45 p.m.
As it is limited to those 4,678 vehicles, why should the Commission also have to apply for licences for them? Why should it need to have licences under a licensing system which was imposed and is operated solely for the purpose of restricting the number of vehicles on the roads in accordance with the needs of the trader?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman keeps

on saying that the Commission will be restricted to that number of road haulage vehicles. I am sure that if he looks at Clause 1 (4) of the Bill, he will see that it is not at all restricted to that number of vehicles.

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue, he would find that I was coming to deal with that point. I will answer it now. I am dealing at the moment with those vehicles which the Commission now owns and operates and to which it is restricted in regard to Clause 4. If it applies subsequently for licences, that is another matter.

Mr. Powell: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: What we are considering now is that the Commission will have to apply for licences not only for the vehicles that it now owns and will be allowed to retain, but, presumably, for the vehicles which are to be sold off if they are not sold off within the three months' period. I cannot see why it is necessary to have this restriction, which will not apply to private enterprise. In private enterprise, the licensing system is necessary because there is no other form of restriction. Here, we already have restriction.
If the Commission is to have to apply for these licences within three months, it will be faced with a very difficult task. After all, the disruption which the Bill brings about and the wrecking of the nationally-owned national network of road services, will put a great deal of work upon the Road Haulage Executive and upon the Commission. If, during this transitional period, limited, in this case, to three months, the Commission must decide from which bases it is to operate these vehicles and must make applications for the licences, it will have imposed upon it an unnecessary large burden of work which has to be carried through within a very short period.
That, I regret to say, seems rather typical of the approach which has been made to the Bill. There is the desire to rush through these changes and to hurry through the transitional period without any regard to the work which is put upon the Commission, and without any regard to the Commission's interests or, for that matter, any regard for the interests of the community.
The service will be disrupted, and as the number of vehicles which the Commission will be allowed to retain is to be


reduced from 6,491, which is the figure we discussed yesterday, to 4,678—that is, in regard to Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division and the parcels and smalls services—the Commission quite clearly must decide how it is to deploy those vehicles which remain to it. As it will have only 63 per cent. of its parcels vehicles, for instance, it must redeploy them and will not necessarily wish to operate them from the centres on which they are now based.
Only since the debate yesterday have I taken this so seriously. The Minister made it quite clear that if there is a change of base or centre after a licence is granted, the licensing authority can act under Clause 8 (4) and can say that the Commission has made a mis-statement and is no longer operating from the base which it said it would use; and the procedure of Clause 8 (4) can apply.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
There will be this procedure, first of all, that the licensing authority must be satisfied that, from a base suitable for that area, the applicant intends to carry out his transport business, and if. later, he leaves that area, the procedure of Clause 8 (4) can apply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1952: Vol. 509, c. 284.]
I intervened and suggested to the Minister that he was stretching Clause 8 subsection (4) rather far, but he stuck to his guns. If he could stretch it for that purpose it could certainly be made to apply to the Transport Commission. I appeal to him to give a little more time, to give 12 months instead of three months, to the Commission to decide the bases from which it wishes to operate vehicles and to enable it to apply for the licences on what will be a more permanent basis than if it has to apply within the period of three months.
Surely it must have time to consider how it is to use these licences and to avoid unnecessary trouble in having to change their base, or to have doubts as to changing its base afterwards because of difficulties which might arise with the licensing authority. I ask the Minister to start today's proceedings by accepting this Amendment from the Opposition. If he looks at the matter carefully and consults the Commission in the matter I am sure that he will do so. After all, it is the Commission who are concerned. I do not know if he has consulted it about this, but I should think that if he did

so there would be no doubt as to its position in the matter.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I have consulted the Commission and they agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). They would like me to accept the Amendment—

Mr. James Callaghan: We have not consulted them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no reason why hon. Members of the Opposition should not do so, but I should be a little surprised if they suggested that the Commission would not favour the terms of this Amendment.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East quite rightly made it clear that this Amendment springs from the obligation now, for the first time, being imposed on the Commission to have to go through the licensing procedure. It is, of course, a fact that this obligation to apply for these licences—as the Bill is now drawn—within three months is one of which they will have had advance warning and they will be able to put in train some of the machinery required.
I wish to put one or two practical difficulties before the Committee. It is true that we shall have on the roads of the country the ordinary A licence vehicles subject to the 25-mile limit, the special A licence vehicles free of the 25-mile limit, vehicles recently acquired by purchase from the Commission, and the vehicles of the Commission themselves. In order that there shall be an immediate and smooth transition in that field of road haulage where the Commission are obliged to dispose of their property, a number of vehicles will be transferred without even time being taken to repaint them with new colours and names before they are put on the roads. It would confront us with an impossible task if the period before application had to be made were allowed to be too long.
Nonetheless, I see the difficulties involved and I have no wish whatever to add to the administrative problems of the Commission who are to be called upon to do a number of things requiring a great deal of work, many of which they regard as really distasteful. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that the provisions of Clause 8 (4) will apply to the Commission as to any other provider of transport. I


take it that he has no quarrel with that. It would be difficult to satisfy him if that were so, and he cannot have it both ways. If we are to have machinery whereby in the case of a false statement or a wrong statement in regard to the granting of a licence the public interest is to be protected, that must apply over the whole field of providers of public transport. But I recognise that it adds to the work which the Commission will have to do.
The suggestion I make to the hon. Member is that, if I cannot put the whole Committee in full good humour, perhaps I can put it in half good humour by agreeing to double the period to six months and, on the Report stage, to introduce an Amendment to that effect.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: Despite the fact that the Minister proposes to double the period from three months to six months, that surely is totally inadequate for this major surgical operation. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to appreciate that the disposal of road haulage vehicles will not take place within 24 hours. The disposal of these undertakings must take place over a period of time and the British Transport Commission have responsibility for maintaining these road services until disposal is finally complete.
From the point of view of the Commission in having to maintain existing road haulage services while having pruned away from it from time to time services which are disposed of to private enterprise, how are the Commission to know precisely what traffics they are to retain, what routes they will run over and what bases from which they will operate? The Commission are dependent upon the proposals of the Disposal Board. The Disposal Board are faced with the task of drawing up job lots and, presumably, attaching to the vehicles certain routes upon which to operate. But it is common knowledge that in doing so the Disposal Board will find it impossible, for instance, to take one road haulage depot and to say, "The whole lot of vehicles and traffic are going to private enterprise, and in future the Commission will have no bases of operation in this area."
The fact which the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate is that the existing basis takes into operation many services which were intimate to the

railways and will continue so to be. It is quite impossible, within the period of even a month or two, to be able to divide the traffic which is being conveyed through one road haulage depot into that part which is to be disposed of and that part which the Commission are to retain.
The six months' proposal of the Minister would be adequate if it could be said that on and after an appointed day the Commission would be faced with a completely new responsibility, that liability for the old basis of operation was ceasing on an appointed day and from that appointed day the new basis of operation would come into use. Then they could certainly make arrangements for the appointed day.
That is quite impossible at present and would be for some months before the Disposal Board settled precisely what vehicles were to be disposed of and what routes were to be coupled to those vehicles for disposal. Until they arrive at that decision the Commission will find it impossible to sort out from a road haulage depot precisely those traffics that in future they will retain. It cannot be done. It is an impossible task.
The Transport Commission cannot properly find out the routes of operation which they will retain to themselves until the Disposal Board have produced the scheme for carving up the whole system. If the Commission start at present to sort out from the depots precisely the traffic which they will retain and the number of vehicles needed for that traffic, the Disposal Board might afterwards come along and say, "We are proposing something totally different." In that event, the Commission would have to revise their schemes to bring them into line with what the Disposal Board had decided about any depot.
4.0 p.m.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is fair to the Transport Commission, for he is asking them to perform an impossible task. There is great substance in the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). This indecent haste is unnecessary and is not playing the game with people who are anxious to serve the country to the best of their ability. The Minister should be prepared to grant a longer period, bearing in mind that it is impossible for the Commission to reach


a decision about the routes they will operate and the traffic they will carry until the Disposal Board have gone into the working of the Road Haulage Executive.
It will take some time to devise a scheme, to sort out the traffic of the various road haulage depots and to say, "At this depot so many vehicles and so much traffic will be for disposal and the remainder will be for the British Transport Commission." Until the Disposal Board have drawn up the scheme for disposal the Commission will not be in a position to decide precisely the routes which will be reserved to them, the vehicles which they will require to operate those routes and the bases from which they will operate.
The Minister should be prepared to give more time, because it is doubtful whether the Board will be able to evolve a satisfactory disposals scheme within six months of their appointment. Does the Minister think that on the day following their appointment the Board will be able to evolve a disposals scheme? It will certainly not work like that. They will face considerable difficulties and anomalies which cannot be solved with the stroke of a pen. In justice to the Transport Commission, at least 12 months should be given in which they could work out a positive scheme which to some extent, at any rate, would be definite and would not be subject to alteration, amendment and even rejection by the Disposal Board when they begin to dispose of the undertaking.

Mr. David Renton: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) will realise that he has made very heavy weather of this business. It is a very narrow point, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 6 (2) he will find that all that is to happen is that the Commission will have to submit applications, within whatever period is decided, for the total number of licences they require. They are in a position to do that at any time. I go as far as to say that if the period put down here were three days it would not be completely unreasonable. The Commission keep current returns of their strength of vehicles. If hon. Members ask Lord Hurcomb or any senior executive—I have not done so myself—I have no doubt that they will be told straight

away exactly how many vehicles and trailers the Commission have.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring my point completely. When an application is made for a licence, the applicant must state the base or centre from which he is operating. The Commission will not be able to determine from which base they will operate then vehicles within the three days which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the elaborate organisation of the Road Haulage Executive is already divided into divisions, areas, groups and operating bases. It is based on those facts that the figures are kept. In making the application in the first place, I doubt whether it will be necessary for details to be given of the precise base from which the vehicle is to be operated. They have to be given before the licence is granted, but when the application is first submitted I should think it could be a global application for each licensing authority's area.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: rose—

Mr. Renton: I cannot give way. The hon. Member for Acton repeated his argument four times, and this is such a short and narrow point that I do not wish to elaborate it.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Before I proceed to make my contribution to the discussion, I should like one point cleared up by the Minister: is it intended, and is it laid down in the wording of this Clause, that the applications to be made by the Transport Commission shall be applications for individual vehicles or a global application for a total number of vehicles?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will answer the debate, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Thomas: I think that point must be cleared up before we are in a position to make valid criticisms of the proposal.
If the Minister does not say that it is intended to be a global application by the Transport Commission, for a total number of vehicles which can be operated over the whole country, then I can read no other meaning into the provisions of the Clause than that the Commission


will be obliged to make separate application for each vehicle which they wish to operate. This separate individual application for each vehicle will relate to the depot from which the vehicle is to operate. If there is any other meaning which can be placed on the Clause, I should like to hear it from the Government Front Bench.
I shall proceed on the assumption that the meaning which I have gathered from the words is correct, and upon that basis I will make my criticism. In the first place, the provisions of the Clause spring from the same root misconception of the purposes of the Traffic Commission as do the whole of the provisions of the Bill. What is the Transport Commission? I do not think the Minister has a clear conception of what the Transport Commission is, what are its separate parts, and what are the functions placed upon it by statute, which it is under an obligation to carry out.
To underline that fact I will make a comparison between the functioning of the Commission in running road transport vehicles and the functioning of a private operator who makes application for a licence and succeeds in getting one. It must be realised that there is a statutory duty upon the Commission to provide an efficient, economic and adequate road transport service. Such duty is not placed upon any applicant for a private licence. Any private licensee can put his vehicles on the road and subsequently can decide to take them off again.
I take it that that is correct? There is no obligation on him to provide that public service. That is the fundamental difference between the private road operator and the Commission which I think the Minister and the Government have entirely overlooked, or have not deigned to notice.
What does this three-month period mean? Within a short period of three months—[HON. MEMBERS: "Six months."] Well, six months. I will double it. It makes little difference to my criticism of the whole conception whether it is three months, six months, 12 months—or 12 years for that matter. I am criticising the fundamental fallacy of the whole conception of this purpose of licensing British Transport vehicles.
To make it at least possible to be put into operation, or to provide some hope beyond three months, even an additional breathing space of a few months, I am in favour of the Amendment, but I doubt very much whether the Commission, even in six months, will be able to face up to the restrictive provisions of this Clause.
I say that the Government are letting the country down, and they are letting the users of public transport down. If they have any doubt about that, all I would ask them to do is to read some of the criticisms made even by leading Conservatives in this Chamber and in another place.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting wide of the Amendment under discussion, which is to leave out "three" and to insert "twelve."

Mr. Thomas: I am merely trying to prove the fallacy on which this whole conception is based, Sir Charles.
I support the Amendment in the hope that the Minister is prepared to extend the period of operation of common sense, or even of Governmental sanity, at least for a period of 12 months before entering into the conditions of utter anarchy which will inevitably prevail as a result of this proposal.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who moved the Amendment, was under a misapprehension which has clouded the debate. He appeared to think that it will be necessary for the Commission, in order to obtain the licences under this Clause and the First Schedule to the Bill, to specify the areas which the vehicles for which licences are sought will serve, and the bases from which they will operate.
If he examines the First Schedule he will see that is not the case. That requirement applies to vehicles forming part of transport units. It is paragraph 4 of Part I of the Schedule which deals with the transport units acquired by the buyers. It is therefore only to vehicles licensed under Part I of the First Schedule that the power of the licensing authority to revoke the licence if the vehicles are subsequently operated from a different base or serve a different area applies.
if the hon. Member will look at Part II of the Schedule, governing the automatic granting of licences to the Commission's vehicles he will see that there is no such limitation at all, and consequently no such power on the part of the licensing authority to revoke. Therefore, all the Commission have to do is simply to specify the vehicles in respect of which they require licences.
To do that they will not have to forecast from what bases they will eventually be running, or select what part of their undertaking they propose to retain under a previous Clause. They will simply specify the vehicles they are still having to use at the appropriate date, whether it is three or six months after the passing of the Act. I do not feel, therefore, that the difficulties felt by the hon. Member for Enfield, East exist at all.

Mr. Sparks: May I put this point to the hon. Member, because that seems to me to be ridiculous? How can the Commission specify a number of vehicles unless the number is related to the traffics they intend to carry? The number must be connected with the traffics they are to carry, and to ascertain that they must know what part of the road traffics they are to retain and what is to be disposed of. Until the Disposal Board deals with that nobody knows.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) sought to justify the proposals of the Government on the ground that it would not be necessary to provide any details about the bases, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). But although there may be some latitude in granting licences to the Commission in the first place, surely they must have some idea of the job they have to do. In the process of their business they must have an idea of what is to happen to their competitors.
Is it suggested that they shall licence the whole of the vehicles left to them, or of the six-fifths which it is proposed to give them under the Bill? Are they to licence them automatically, irrespective of need, or the geographical sphere of operation of the vehicles? Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is to be in the nature of an automatic request

at this point and that there will be no question of argument when the matter comes before the Commissioners.
What is the hurry? We shall finish the Committee stage of this Bill next week and the Government hope to get the Bill passed by the end of March or April of next year. The Minister has told us he hopes the transaction will be well on the way to completion by the end of December, 1953.
It is proposed that, within three months of the passing of this Bill, the Commission shall be required to take out licences for their vehicles. But why should that be done when the industry is in the melting pot and nobody knows what the future will be? What advantage will there be? The Minister has conceded part of the argument in that he is now prepared to double the time and to make it six months. What led him to change his mind? Why does he think that six months is any better than three months?
What are the arguments against the submission that the period should be one of 12 months? It is doubtful whether that time will be adequate, but in that period we shall be able to see whether the Commission require x number of licences or any other number, in the light of experience.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the hon. Gentleman contending that the Commission will not want to operate the total number of vehicles which this Bill will allow? Does he take the view that they may wish to apply for licences for fewer vehicles than those to which they are entitled under this Bill?

Mr. Davies: That is a two-edged question. Neither I nor anyone else can say what number of vehicles the Commission will want to operate when the time comes. I imagine that they will want to operate the lot, but I do not know. Why should they be saddled with the responsibility, in three months' time, of committing themselves by having to apply for licences for every vehicle whether they want to use them or not? They may have some vehicles which they would be glad to get rid of, but this provision puts upon them the obligation of taking out licences within three months of the passing of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what advantage is to be gained.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is, of course, an important matter, but there are a number of even more important matters to be discussed and I will be brief. I do not think there need be any misunderstanding. Of course, nothing one could do would satisfy those like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. 0. Thomas) who talk gaily about three or six months being all the same as 12 years. Those who are anxious that a reasonable period should be allowed will, I hope, find in the doubling of the period in the Bill a fair answer to their argument.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) why I had changed my mind. What, otherwise, is the purpose of debate? Has not it always been the contention of the Opposition—whichever party may form the Opposition—that in the process of give and take reasonable compromises are reached? Of course, there is no question that in the new period of six months which I have undertaken to accept the Commission have got to re-arrange and re-dispose all their fleet. All they have to do is to apply in the respective licensing areas for licences for their vehicles on the basis of the present disposition of their fleet.
When they want variations, as they will from time to time, they will apply to the licensing authority for them. It is not suggested that in three months—or in six months now—they should take action which they cannot take until the disposal machinery in the Bill comes into operation; for this period of six months starts when the Bill becomes law. As the Committee know, the machinery of disposal will not, at the earliest, be completed until the end of next year, and many people feel that I was over-optimistic when I suggested that.
In these circumstances, I hope that the Committee will feel disposed to accept the gesture that I made earlier in this debate, not entirely but in part because I want to meet reasonable arguments from the Opposition and because I want, as they do, to pass on to other equally important questions.

Mr. Callaghan: It would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge that the Minister has doubled the original time that he thought of in an attempt to go some way towards meeting this Amendment. I must say, however, that I do not

think that he fully appreciates even now the task that the Commission will have to undertake, and certainly those of his hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate have no conception—at any rate, they did not display it—of the duties of a licensing authority and of what it may require the Commission to produce.

Mr. Renton: In relation to these types of application, the duties are clearly specified in the First Schedule.

Mr. Callaghan: Where?

Mr. Renton: In Part II of the Schedule.

Mr. Callaghan: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that the duties are specified in Part II of the First Schedule. I also have read that Schedule, and what it says is that the application shall not be refused, but—and this is where I think all the supporters of the Minister fail to grasp the point—Part II of the First Schedule does not deal with what a licensing authority may prescribe that it needs before it grants the application.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has, perhaps unwittingly, hit the nail on the head, when he used the expression, "before it grants the application." The details required have to be submitted not at the time the application is made but before it is granted. That is the important distinction.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not resisting interruptions, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech he will find that I have thought of that and that I will deal with it later. If I forget it I give him leave to interrupt me again.
The Minister and those who support him on this question will see in Section 5 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, that there is laid down a detailed procedure which licensing authorities may require those applying for licences to carry out. Anybody who has practised in the traffic courts—I have not—will know that the licensing authorities require a great deal of this work to be carried out before they will consider the granting of an application.
I hope that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will not think that I am wasting time. We want to see justice done to the


Commission as well as to the private road hauliers. We know that his interest is in the private road hauliers. Our major interest in this matter is with the Commission. I hope that he will not move the Closure on me yet. We will get to the Amendment in his name, I promise him. I will pick out some of the important parts of Section 5 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. Subsection (1, c) says that the applicant must submit a statement:
specifying … the facilities for the transport of goods intended to be provided by him under the licence for other persons, including particulars of the district within which, or the places between which, it is intended that the authorised vehicles will normally be used for the purpose of carrying goods for hire or reward.
There is nothing in Part II of the First Schedule which relieves the Commission of the obligation of producing these details if the licensing authority insists on having them; and it is not within the competence of the Minister to tell the licensing authority that it is not to require these details.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One of the advantages which has flown from the large-scale organisation of the Commission is that there are good statistics available. The Commission are in a position to answer quickly questions of this kind. That will be of great advantage in this field.

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the Minister for that unsolicited tribute. It is true. But, as he himself has recognised by doubling the period of time that the Commission shall have in which to prepare these statistics, this is a formidable task. Anyone who has had the job of looking at these applications knows that a great deal of work can be required to prepare one application if the authority decides to stand on its rights, and indeed its duties, under Section 5 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act.
4.30 p.m.
It says here in subsection (2):
A person applying for a licence shall give to the licensing authority"—
not may give, but shall give—
any information which he may reasonably require for the discharge of his duties in relation to the application and, in particular,"—
and there follow three specific requirements that must be submitted to the licensing authority in the prescribed form

—not on any old piece of paper, but done in a proper way. This is, presumably, a clerical administrative operation which has to be carried out, and that is the whole point, though a comparatively narrow one.
It seems to me quite clear that hon. Members who are supporting the Minister do not realise how much work is involved in this particular matter. I am not going to specify these operations, but I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that those familiar with the operation of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and with the licensing authorities—and the Minister is, I know—will be aware of what I am saying—that the licensing authorities can require rather considerable data from any applicants for a licence.
In subsection (3), which is an important one which I cannot overlook, it is laid down that
the application must be made to the licensing authority for the area in which the permanent base or centre from which it is intended that the authorised vehicles will normally be used for the purpose of carrying goods for hire or reward is situate, and a separate application must be made in respect of each such base or centre.
As I understand, that means that the Transport Commission will have to make well over 1,000 separate applications to either 12 or 13 licensing authorities; I have forgotten how many there are. I now understand that there are, in fact, 12. They will have to make certainly well over 1,000 applications, and I would say many more than that, because there will be a number of sub-depots not included in the figure of 1,000 and of a comparatively small character.

Mr. Renton: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that one person can apply on one piece of paper to one licensing authority for as many as 1,000 vehicles.

Mr. Callaghan: Of course, he can, but, in fact, he will not, and for this reason. The Transport Commission will want to name their bases, and will want to have at their bases a number of vehicles which may be as low as five or as many as 200. Indeed, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I doubt whether there will be a single application for 1,000 vehicles, though there will be many for a score of vehicles or under, and these are pretty considerable operations.
There is nothing in Part II of the Schedule—and I say this for the benefit of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—which relieves an applicant from the obligation to give the number of those operated, and, I think, very properly, but, says the hon. Member for Huntingdon, he can do that after he has made his application. As I understand, the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon is this. Let them snap in an application, and they can work out all the details afterwards. He can do that in a period of three days, according to the hon. Member, but which the Minister thinks should be six months.
I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that there seems to me to be a slight discrepancy between the two, and, further, that paragraph 4 of Part II of the Schedule lays down that:
No variation shall be made of an A licence granted under paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule except a variation consisting only of the removal of a specified vehicle from the licence,…
As I understand that, it fixes once and for all the bases from which the vehicles operate.

Mr. Powell: With respect, that paragraph refers to special A licences only, which are granted in respect of the transport units, and not in respect of the Commission's own vehicles.

Mr. Callaghan: I am quite prepared to take time to get this straight, and I ask the hon. Gentleman if I am not right in thinking that, when an application is made for a special A licence, the base from which the vehicle is going to operate has to be fixed and determined and cannot then be altered?

Mr. Powell: We are not discussing special A licences, for which there is a definition in paragraph 1.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I make this quite plain, because the question is rather important? It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mir. Powell) has pointed out, a question of special A licences. They are not the Commission's business. They are licences for transport units or businesses that are being disposed of, and they will have to specify the area and all the other requirements. If, in fact, they apply for a variation of the licence, this restriction

in the Schedule relates to a variation in the number of the vehicles. The Commission remain as free as they were before within the sphere of working of the 1933 Act. They will have their statistical evidence immediately available, and a period of six months will give them ample time.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the Minister. When the Transport Commission put in their application for their licences in this class which we are now discussing, is it quite clear that they will be able to alter or vary the bases from which they propose their vehicles shall operate?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They will be perfectly free to put in an application to do so, but it is not for me to anticipate the decision of the licensing authority.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not wish to take an unfair advantage of the Minister, because this matter is too important for mere debating points. Is it not, therefore, very important that the Commission should take a considerable time to work out exactly from which bases they will want their vehicles to operate, because, though they will get the first licence automatically, in the case of a second, they can only apply for it, and under the provisions of the Bill, there may be a considerable difficulty in working it out?
The provisions of the Clause, we think, will make it easier for people to get into the industry, and, therefore, to get the Commission out. I am not arguing the merits, though I do say that they seem to me to reinforce the case I am making. The Commission, when making their initial application, should be quite certain what is the pattern of the operation which they intend to follow when they get their plans completed. That, I understand, is the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East made, and which I do not think was destroyed in the subsequent debate. Indeed, it is recognised by the Minister, because he is now doubling the period to six months.
We raise this matter as one of administration, and I would not care to pronounce finally as between the two periods of six months and 12 months, but, with the many other tasks which the Commission will have thrust upon them, we think that the Minister is being less than generous to them. It is not as if this task


stands in isolation; there are many other things which have been thrown upon them by this Bill, and I believe they ought to have a longer period.
One final word. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must not behave as if the licensing authorities are the servants of the Minister. They are not. They have semi-judicial, independent qualifications that are given to them by Act of Parliament, and, as those of us who have worked with them know—and I have presided at some of their conferences, and I dare say that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have also done so—they take an independent view of their own functions. We cannot tell them to depart from their functions, unless we alter the functions laid upon them by passing an amending Act.
That is why I say, with apologies to the noble Lord, who is wanting to get on to the discussion on his own Amendment, that we should take time on this matter in order to ensure that the procedure is fully understood and that it is made quite clear that this House, by passing Part II of the Schedule, cannot visit upon the licensing authorities obligations which they are not willing to take.
In all the circumstances, it would have been preferable to have had 12 months, but, in view of the concession which the Minister has made, and while we adhere to our own view on the period of 12 months, we would be content with the Amendment being negatived.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) made a very reasonable case for the Amendment. This is the first time during the Committee proceedings that the Minister has made a concession to both this side of the Committee and the Transport Commission. As the Minister consulted the Transport Commission and their advice was that there ought not to be a limited period of three months, I should have thought the Minister would gladly have accepted the Amendment providing for a period of 12 months.
It is no good the Minister being in a great hurry about licensing. The Minister is being unfair to the Transport Commission and to the nation which owns the industry. To compare this with the treatment which is to be given to the purchasers of units, those purchasers

will, with very little trouble at all, receive a licence for five years as an encouragement to them to purchase the vehicles.
My hon. Friends have made it clear that the Commission will have a tremendous task to carry out. They have all sorts of instructions. They must assemble units for sale. They must consult the Disposal Board. There are 101 extra duties which the Commission will have to carry out as a result of the Bill. I should have thought that in the transitional period, and in the light of all the circumstances, the Minister would have given the Commission 12 months' grace in respect of licensing. Why should the Transport Commission and the licensing authorities within six months of the passing of the Act have to be troubled by having to make applications for licences when the vehicles are on sale and awaiting new owners. It is a waste of time, energy and money.
The Government are destroying the unified national transport system and handing State property over to private vested interests in a way never equalled in the history of Parliamentary Government, and yet, in spite of all the extra duties which are entailed by the Bill, the Minister says he cannot give the Transport Commission 12 months' grace in respect of licensing. The Minister's decision is consistent with the attitude of the Ministry and the Government throughout this Bill. In his undue haste in this and other parts of the Bill, the Minister is doing incalculable harm to the trade and industry of our country. The Bill—the Clause in particular—is a disgraceful example of the mismanagement of the affairs of the nation by this Tory reactionary Government.
Amendment negatived.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the total number of vehicles in respect of which such licences may be applied for shall not exceed the total number of vehicles belonging to the Commission which carried road fund licences on the first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.
We feel that something is necessary to prevent the Commission from using their powers under Clause 6 (2) to apply for a vast number of vehicles which, bearing in mind the background of the licensing


system and of the Bill, could not possibly be justified. When the Commission obtains licences under the Clause, vehicles and A licences will, so to speak, be paired with each other, and we want to ensure that the pairs are live pairs and not dead pairs.
The danger that they may become dead pairs can very well be seen by examining the figures which the Commission gives in its 1951 Report in showing the operating stock and the repair position of British Road Service vehicles. The total stock at the end of the year was 41,265 motor vehicles and articulated units. But we find that of that number no fewer than 2,092 vehicles were stored, which means stored and serviceable. Presumbaly no use could be found for them. Unserviceable vehicles numbered 1,692, and there were 779 vehicles awaiting disposal. In addition to these vehicles, which were clearly off the road and not deserving of any A licences in any circumstances, there were 3,264 vehicles which were under or awaiting repair. That makes a total of some 6,000 vehicles.
We consider that it would be quite wrong that the Commission should, so to speak, be entitled as of right, and in the exercise of their discretion, to obtain licences for some 6,000 vehicles which can broadly be described as dead pairs.

Mr. Pannell: Taking merely the figure of vehicles under repair which the hon. Member has given, surely they would not be dead for all purposes. In fairly large firms, at least within my experience, when an audit is taken for any purpose on a given date it is customary to point out that there is a number of vehicles under repair and off the road only on that day. I think that the hon. Member would have a more precise basis for his argument if he eliminated the number of vehicles under repair. After all, the overhaul of even the largest type of vehicles would not mean that they would be off the road for more than a month or six weeks. To use this repair figure is misleading.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member's remarks refer to a very large number of vehicles—3,264. Some of them may very well have been off the road on the day in respect of which these figures were given. Others may have been what the Road Haulage Executive call "beyond

local repair" and may be sent to a central repair depot as far as 60 miles away. I concede to the hon. Member that it has always been customary for those who prudently operate a large haulage fleet to maintain a reserve of vehicles for maintenance and repair.
I stand open to correction if I am wrong, but my recollection is that under the licensing system an operator has always been entitled to have more vehicles than the number of licences he held, so long as he did not have on the road at any one time more vehicles than the number of licences he held in respect of specific vehicles. We want to ensure that the Commission do not have anything in excess of what they had as available operating stock, which was 35,099 vehicles on 31st December, 1951, and which may be quite a different figure for a more recent date.
It is very difficult to judge from the Commission's own description what the expression "available operating stock" means. The word "available" is a word of which I am slightly suspicious, because when one describes stock as being available for operation it does not mean necessarily that it was in operation. The number of vehicles actually in use on 31st December, 1951, by the Commission may well have been much lower than the figure of 35,099 which they gave. Therefore, in putting forward this Amendment we have made a sincere attempt at arriving at a method of measuring the total effective fleet of the Commission.
We say that if one takes the number of Road Fund licences which the Commission had on a particular date one will be getting probably as near as one can ever get to finding out what was the total number of vehicles which were in effective operation. If one once assumes that that is a fair test, the next thing one has to decide is to what date it should apply. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) acknowledged the tribute which the Minister paid to the fact that the Commission have good statistical information available.
The Commission probably will have no difficulty whatever in finding out, within the period of six months which the Minister has now granted to them, how many vehicles on 1st December, 1952, were carrying Road Fund licences. We think that that is a very fair way of


limiting as I think in fairness to all concerned it should be limited, the power of the Commission to obtain A licences for five years, in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Bill.

Mr. James Harrison: What would the hon. Member consider to be a reasonable number of vehicles, in a terrific fleet of 35,000 or 40,000, which might be stood on one side for repair or to be in reserve? There must be a reserve for repair and to cope with variations in trade.

Mr. Renton: I do not claim to be an expert.

Mr. William Keenan: Then why does the hon. Member give us all this?

Mr. Renton: Although I have some knowledge of Traffic Commissioners' courts—possibly as much knowledge as has the hon. Member—I have no expert knowledge of operating fleets.

Mr. Sparks: That is quite true.

Mr. Renton: I dare say that I share that lack of knowledge with some hon. Members opposite. May I answer one hon. Member at a time? I am trying to answer the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. J. Harrison), who asked what proportion of these vehicles might be reasonably expected to be off the road at any one time. I can only draw upon my Army experience. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but the Army had possibly the largest fleet of vehicles, other than that of the British Transport Commission, that has been under control at any one time. I used to think that it was rather overdoing things for maintenance purposes, but we used to try to get one vehicle off the road per week.

Mr. Keenan: Out of how many?

Mr. Renton: I am coming round to that.
In practice we found that once a fortnight was not too bad if the vehicles were busy and they were reasonably well maintained. But suppose we take the figure as 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. On that basis we find that the figure of 3,264 appears quite reasonable in relation to

the total of 35,099. I grant that, but if the hon. Member for Nottingham, East wishes to probe deeply into this matter he should inquire what the figure of 35,099 represented in terms of vehicles actually fully occupied on the road. That is the real point, and that is the point to which I would invite hon. Members to direct their attention in considering whether or not this Amendment is a fair one.
We are all in very great difficulty in that none of us has had the opportunity of probing as deeply as we should like into the affairs of British Road services. I should like to acknowledge the tact that I received great courtesy when I called at depots in my constituency and in neighbouring areas. I asked the Chairman of the Transport Commission if I could do so. He provided facilities and I was given all the information for which asked. Even so, even though I spent a whole day on this matter and devoted other occasions to it as well, one cannot probe extremely deeply into a figure like this which affects the whole countryside and on which visits to many separate areas would not give the answer.
Judging on the figures of empty running given in another part of the Road Haulage Executive's Report and the poor operating results shown—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am not going to put myself out of order by rising to the jeers opposite. I ask hon. Members not to take this figure of 35,099 as the figure which necessarily indicates the number of effective running vehicles on 31st December, 1951.
Quite candidly, we do not feel especially committed to the precise drafting of this Amendment. It is an amateurish and honest attempt to bring out the principle which we have in mind. It has to be read in conjunction with the Amendment to Schedule 1, page 45, line 29, to which, with the approval of your predecessor, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I am speaking at the same time. That Amendment to the Schedule is in precisely the same terms as the Amendment which I am now moving. Whether that is the right way of doing it I am not sure, but at any rate I suggest that our minds should be directed much more to the principle underlying this Amendment than to any particular form of words.

5.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but we cannot recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment even in principle. The proviso, if inserted into the Bill, would limit the number of B.T.C. vehicles which would obtain licences, without applying under the Road Traffic Act, 1933, to the number in their possession and which were covered by Road Fund licences as on 1st December, 1952. The effect would be to make the Commission apply to the licensing authorities in the usual way if they wished to use more than this number of vehicles. The number of vehicles holding Road Fund licences on any one date might well be completely inappropriate on some other date.
I am sure all hon. Members are aware of the effect of seasonal trade fluctuations, and that to take an arbitrary date of that sort might be an entirely false criterion. Moreover, if I may underline an argument which was put to us yesterday with admirable clarity by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who is not in his place at the moment, provision has to be made for the effect of severe weather conditions when it may be necessary to bring vehicles into operation to deal with some emergency. It would, of course, be quite intolerable if the public need for transport were to be unsatisfied because the Commission had not had the necessary time to obtain the licences which would be required for this purpose.
May I remind my hon. Friend, and indeed the Committee generally, that the licensing system makes allowance, and always did, for such exigencies as the traffic fluctuations to which I have just referred, breakdowns, repairs and similar factors. This procedure existed long prior to nationalisation; there is no party point here at all. There has never been any certainty—I think I can go further and say there has never been any likelihood—that all the vehicles of any particular operator would be on the road all the time. Therefore, there has always been a margin regarded as necessary unless traffic demands are to go unsatisfied in one quarter or another.
The fear has been expressed by my hon. Friend that the Road Haulage Executive might thus compete with the purchasers of the vehicles whom we hope will materialise when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. May I point out that there would, after all, be no incentive at all for the Executive to build up a business which was so soon to be abandoned? I have kept my remarks as brief as I can, because I know the Committee are anxious to make progress. I thought I would speak now in the hope that a little time would be saved. I think these are potent reasons for refusing the insertion of this proviso, and I express the hope that my hon. Friends will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not want to delay the Committee, and I appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am not quite clear even now exactly what number of A licences it is proposed the Commission should apply for. Is it 41,265 or some other figure? There are a considerable number of vehicles amounting to 1,642 which are unserviceable.
For the benefit of hon. Members opposite, I would say that I have been given figures which, in my estimation, indicate that the British Road Services have not been using on the roads more than 28,000 vehicles in any one month. I have been given those figures on a number of occasions; I cannot prove them, but they have not been challenged.
My information is that of the 35,000 given in the Report, there were some 4,500 which were on private contract work for delivery on behalf of private firms, that there were 3,500 engaged on parcels traffic, 2,000 on special traffic, 3,000 on local and railway work, 10,000 on tramp work and only 5,500 on regular trunk routes. Those figures add up to 28,500 and nothing like the figures of 35,000, or 38,000, and still less like the figure of 41,000 which has been given. There might be an excessive number licensed under this provision.

Mr. J. Harrison: I think we ought to congratulate the Minister on the abrupt way in which he rejected this Amendment. I think the Transport Commission would have sufficient difficulties without increasing the rigidity of the straitjacket into which they are being put. I suggest that the classic example—

Mr. G. Wilson: I should like to make it clear that I was not turning down any suggestion made by my hon. Friend. I was only asking for information.

Mr. Harrison: The point that the Parliamentary Secretary made was the classic example of the need for this flexibility in the number of vehicles available for the Transport Commission or the Road Haulage Executive or even for private hauliers. The classic example was during the great freeze-up, a few years ago, when the transport of coal on the railways in the Midlands was almost brought to a standstill by the extraordinarily severe weather. The private hauliers came to the rescue on that occasion.
If we accepted the principle embodied in this Amendment, such rescue work in the future would be absolutely impossible from the point of view not only of the Transport Commission but the private road haulier. I feel that we are indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for being so abrupt in his dismissal of this Amendment.

Mr. Braithwaite: I trust that I did not give an impression of abruptness. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson)—I hope without abruptness—the Commission can apply for licences for the whole of their fleet, and it remains their duty to dispose of the whole fleet.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I can understand hon. Members opposite rejoicing in the fact that the Commission should be allowed to get A licences for the maximum number of vehicles possible, because in so far as they are obliged to dispose of them over a time they are obviously concerned to see that private enterprise should be subjected to the maximum competition. We feel that the Commission should not be put in a specially privileged position to bring in vehicles from every source to compete with private enterprise.
The object of this Amendment is somewhat to limit the powers of the Commission to go searching into the highways, byways, into the garages and parking grounds to bring out derelict vehicles, or vehicles which will need repairing, and to prevent them purchasing fresh vehicles in order to get licences.
I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government were anxious to

see this sale take place and to see the prices held high and full opportunities created for these small people to get their vehicles quickly so that they can compete over the existing territory of business activities. I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government would have been delighted to find an Amendment of this kind put into the Bill.
I am very disappointed with the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. He ended by saying—as if it were a powerful argument in this debate—that there was no incentive to build up a business which was to be broken up. How relevant that was to the Amendment we are discussing I am unable to make out, but if it is relevant it is precisely what the Government are doing to the Commission—giving it no incentive to build up because it is going to be broken up. I should like a further explanation of that very odd remark from my hon. Friend.
He never contested the view put forward by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that the running number of Road Haulage Executive vehicles is something like 28,500. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the full number of 41,265 vehicles was likely to be licensed. I should have thought that a most dispiriting factor in the purchase of these vehicles and the running of transport by private enterprise—would be the feeling that as and when they were beginning to make a bid for these vehicles the Commission, under the stimulus of hon. Gentlemen opposite, were going to bring out every vehicle they could from all their resources and garages and put them into commission.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I understand the noble Lord's case for this Bill is that it will obtain the maximum amount of competition and allow private enterprise to give the best possible service. How is he relating that to the particular argument which he is now advancing with a view to the destruction of competition? How do the two things hang together?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What I am saying is that at this moment on the trunking services there is a certain amount of merchandise moving about and a certain demand for hauling. It has been the point of hon. Gentlemen opposite for some months past that owing


to a slight trade recession there is not so much traffic as there was formerly. [HON. MEMBERS: "A slight recession? "] It is indeed a slight recession, and we are recovering very rapidly. At this moment we begin to break up the Road Haulage Executive—quite rightly—on various grounds, and we move over from the centralised State institution to private enterprise a portion of the services which supply and satisfy this demand for merchandise. That demand must be satisfied by the vehicles of private enterprise and the vehicles which the Commission is currently running to satisfy those services.

Mr. Popplewell: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that as far as private enterprise is concerned he is quite prepared for competition, but that he is not prepared for competition from a publicly-owned enterprise? Is that his line of argument?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: All I am saying is that we are moving vehicles and operators from a centralised monopoly institution into the field of private enterprise and, from the appointed day, they will begin to compete until the monopoly institution is broken up. But in order to get the services running we have to visualise those vehicles moving from the centralised corporation to private enterprise and to remember that they will both be in competition, over a period, for a certain amount of merchandise which is not likely to be rapidly increased.
5.15 p.m.
Unless we put in an Amendment of this kind, as the vehicles are moved over to the private enterprise sector there will be coming in at the back of the public enterprise sector a large number of vehicles which are now under repair or in garages and which are not being used to satisfy the present long-distance road haulage demand. I think that is inflationary and it is in order to limit that inflation and to satisfy the clamant demands of members of the road haulage industry that we have lodged this Amendment. The sort of answer we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary, which fiddled about with dates and snow-covered roads, is not really sufficient to satisfy the serious intention behind the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: In view of my desire to leave an opportunity for discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment; but I do so in no spirit of satisfaction.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order. Could we have an assurance that the withdrawal of the Amendment is agreed to by the noble Lord?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is not a point of order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: We have now to consider the general principle of this Clause. For the moment I am not so much concerned with the latter part of the Clause, which deals with the question of freeing the Commission's vehicles from the 25-mile limit, as with the intention of the earlier subsections. It is perfectly true that for rather less than five years the Commission are given certain privileges as regards licences, but those are temporary provisions. First, I want to see why they are only made temporary and what is to happen at the end of the five years.
Much might happen in five years' time. Much might even happen in the course of Elections between now and five years' time; but for the moment we are not considering that. We are considering what is being put forward by way of permanent legislation. From that point of view this is a purely temporary provision. At the end of five years the Commission are to be put exactly in the position of any private operator vis-a-vis the licensing authority. They will be competing on absolutely level terms and they will have no more rights than a private operator when they come to apply for a licence.
I am quite aware that that is exactly what hon. Gentlemen opposite want, but it seems to me that in that respect they have entirely disregarded the public position and public duties of the Commission, and that they have thrown overboard in this respect—as, indeed, in many other respects, and this time with quite a loud and definite flop into the water—any idea of getting an integrated road transport


system, even if we leave out of the argument any question of integration between road and rail.
My reason for saying that is that a private operator, whether he is a small or large one, is obviously in the business to make the most he can out of it. We do not attribute to him any high sense of public responsibility in the matter, nor do we wish to say that he is dishonest, or anything of that sort. We merely say that his motives are necessarily quite different from those of the Commission. What I object to in the removal of what are, I agree, exceptional privileges in the hands of the Commission, is that those privileges were given to the Commission in recognition of their public character and their public duties; and they are now being withdrawn, as I see it, at any rate at the end of five years, without regard to its public character and its public responsibilities. That is my broad objection to the beginning of this Clause which repeals, in fact, those privileges.
I do not suppose for a minute that the Government at this stage are going to reconsider this matter, but I should like to put it to them in a spirit of sweet reasonableness. Let them have their way, if they are going to—let us assume they are to have it— with regard to so much in the rest of the Bill: with regard to the sale of transport units; the disposal of a large part of the Commission's property; the restriction of the Commission to a given number of vehicles and the forcing upon it of a choice, in effect, between one set of valuable services of the character of Pickford's, and so on, and other activities which it usefully, to good purpose, has carried out hitherto.
Let us assume for this purpose all that is bound to happen. Yet at the end of it all the road transport system of the country is to be handed over to the competition of a large number of road operators each of whom will go to one place or another and seek to make his profit where and as he can; and, of course, in those particular localities they will meet, as they always had to meet, with the control of the licensing authorities. I recognise that.
But I should like to suggest to the Minister that he could at least leave it open to the Commission to fill in the gaps, even if he is not prepared to do any more than that, and leave it in the

discretion of the Commission, which is a greater expert in the matter of transport than even the licensing authorities can be, to take a broader view of it and a longer view of it than anybody merely carrying out the functions of the Tribunal can possibly take; leave it to the Commission in those circumstances to move about, to use its vehicles where they can and as they can, and, in effect, to carry out the public duty of stopping up the gaps in the transport system which are bound to arise under this Bill, and of doing what little it can still do to make an integrated road system in the sense at least of having one that covers adequately public needs and local needs all over the country as and when they arise.
I am quite aware that even now under the licensing provisions the Commission can apply to any of those licensing authorities. That I know. But it still leaves the licensing authorities with the rather narrow statutory view that they are bound to take in these matters as the final authorities for saying to a public body with far larger responsibilities and a far larger outlook on the needs of transport, "No, not here. No, not in that way," and that seems to me to be the point of principle that is raised on this Clause, and for that reason I still hope that the Minister will reconsider it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I wish I could respond to the spirit of sweet reasonableness by giving an absolute undertaking to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but my difficulty would be this. If we said the function of the Commission would be solely to fill in the gaps then there would be substance in the charge that they were being left alone with the unremunerative routes. The pattern of transport as already developing seems to us to be more safely left in the hands of the licensing authorities, to whom, under this Clause, the Commission, along with private operators, will have to go.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the fact that by this Clause the Commission, though it is subject to the licensing system, will be freed from the 25-miles limit. It is, I think, no secret that the Government are very anxious at an early date—indeed, the Bill enshrines this intention—to dispose altogether, and, we hope, for all time, of the pernicious 25-mile limit. I wish it had been possible to give this freedom to all and not only


to the purchasers of units and, under this Clause, to the Commission, for the same arguments do apply, and will, after the end of 1954, apply to all other operators.
The position of the Government has been plain in this matter from the very start. All through the debates in February, March and April, 1947, we attacked the arbitrary figure of 25 miles. We said that if it was right in one district it need not necessarily be right in another. We tried to give areas near the sea—and the Commission by this Clause are freed from the 25-mile limit—special treatment. A 25-mile limit for a private haulier living alongside the sea was obviously a ludicrous situation. Then a Bill was introduced into the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins), and in another place. The Government of the day—the Opposition today—fought that Bill at every stage and left in it only the long and short Title.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. I fully understand that we have only four minutes left in which to discuss Clause 7, and it was my purpose, if I caught your eye, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to make some observations on it, but if I may, with great respect, I would submit to you that the fact that we have not reached it at this moment is no reason why the Minister should make a speech on Clause 7 when we are discussing Clause 6.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Further to that, I hope that the Guillotine does not fall when we are discussing a point of order. The Clause exempts the Commission and only the Commission, except for purchasers of units, from the operation of the 25-mile limit. It would seem to me, therefore, not out of order at this point to discuss the position of those people who, in the next few years, will be in an unfair position vis-a-vis the Commission.

Mr. Callaghan: I understand that there is a way of doing our business here, and that we do separate matters. We are going to discuss that particular Clause—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill "—that is, Clause 6—and we cannot discuss Clause 7 now.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Then I will content myself with saying that on a later occasion I shall have an opportunity of showing just how large a number of other

people will also have the privileges that this Clause confers upon the Commission. Meanwhile, of course—and this is directly relevant to this Clause—the 7,000 original permits that have been retained by the Commission—or rather the holders of those permits that have retained them in their possession—cannot be reviewed or modified until the end of 1954. Nor then either, because at that point the 25-mile limit will go.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. I really do wish to raise a point of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have ruled on that.

Mr. Callaghan: I really do wish to raise a point of order. My point of order is that it really is unfair of the Minister, having Guillotined us, to take the whole of the time by a discussion which, as you recognise, Mr. Hopkin Morris, is on the fringes of order, because he is certainly skirting the next Clause, and preventing us making any observations on the particular Clause at all. He knows, and you know, that he is getting to the edge of Clause 7. We have had no opportunity to discuss it because the Amendment of hon. Gentlemen opposite has taken up the time.

The Deputy-Chairman: That point of order is skirting a point of order, too.

Mr. Callaghan: That is so, and I would say, if I may, that we are committing ourselves into your hands, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and we feel that the Minister is treating us extremely unfairly, when we are not allowed to make any points on this particular Clause. I submit to you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that he should resume his seat, so that we can do so.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. The Guillotine falls upon all of us. We did not originate it. Why should the Minister have a privileged right to the tumbrils?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the field of transport—
It being Half-past Five o'Clock, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Half-past Five o'Clock.

Clause 7.—(REPEAL, AS FROM END OF 1954, OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO TWENTY-FIVE MILE LIMIT.)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(RIGHTS OF OBTAINING LICENCES FOR FIVE YEARS FOR GOODS VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE.)

Question put, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 290; Noes. 264.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO GROUNDS FOR GRANTING OR REFUSING LICENCES.)

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, to leave out subsection (1).
Owing to the ruthless dropping of the Guillotine, we jump now to Clause 8, not having been able to have any discussion, except one which was out of order on the part of the Minister, on Clause 7 or on the First Schedule.
On the face of it, it might appear that the provision in Clause 8 (1) is innocent, but I find it difficult to regard this without grave suspicion. On a first reading it is mere verbiage, and it is difficult to follow exactly what is the change in the procedure of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, which is contemplated. I ask the Committee to listen to the two contrasting phrases, one which is to be substituted for the other, to see whether there is any real difference apparent in the words. The subsection says that the licensing authorities
shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring, as well as of those of persons providing, facilities for transport".

There is to be substituted for those words:
shall have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport".
It is difficult to see at first exactly what this means, but if one studies it in relation to the operation of the licensing Acts of 1930 and 1933, I think there is an effort here to attack the operation of the licensing system, as it has been administered up to the present time. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that there is something pernicious in this subsection, because it could be used to undermine the whole of the licensing system. I suggest to the Minister that if there is to be any change, it should not be introduced in this comprehensive Bill which deals with the re-organisation of our transport system, particularly the unnecessary and vicious de-nationalisation of road haulage, and the equally unnecessary re-organisation of the railways and the depriving of the Transport Commission of the right to operate road passenger transport.
This is not the place to monkey about with the licensing system. It is not


relevant to the other Clauses of the Bill, it is not necessary for the operation of this Bill and the Minister should eliminate it. After all, he has decided that in the case of the road passenger licensing system there should be an investigation by an impartial committee. He has appointed the Thesiger Committee to inquire into its operation. In this case, if the Minister is to make any changes in the operation of the licensing system as regards goods vehicles, there is an equally strong case for appointing an impartial committee to inquire into the situation before he does so. He should not just slide it into this Bill hoping that it will not be observed by hon. Members.
5.45 p.m.
I fear that if this subsection remains it might lead to a return to the position which prevailed before the passing of the 1930 and 1933 Acts which, after all, were agreed Measures. The 1930 Act was passed by a Labour Government and the 1933 Act was passed by a Conservative Government so, if there is to be any amendment of those Acts, it should be brought about by the agreement of the two parties.
I refer to both Acts because the licensing provisions are similar. The basis of both those Acts is that additional transport facilities shall only be provided on the basis of need. In other words, new entrants in the case of road haulage have to prove that there is a need for new facilities because the existing facilities are inadequate. Later in the Clause it is suggested in subsection (3, a) that the onus of proof that there are grounds for objection shall lie on the objector. At the present time it is the other way round: the objector does not have to prove that there are existing facilities, the person who is making the application has to prove that there are inadequate facilities.
Once we depart from the principle of proving public need for new facilities, we open the way to a return to the conditions which prevailed before the licensing system was introduced under the 1930 and 1933 Acts to relieve the congestion on the roads. Thereby, of course, it contributed to greater public safety, to preventing wasteful and unnecessary services, and particularly to protecting existing facilities. Existing facilities, of

course, included the railways and the basis of those Acts was the desire to give some protection to the railways since it was generally accepted that it was essential to maintain a national, solvent railway system.
The Acts have worked reasonably well; less well, perhaps, in the case of road haulage than they have in road passenger transport. As I understand it, the change of wording here would alter the basis on which the licensing authority decides whether to grant a licence or not. The emphasis would be shifted from the public interest generally to the interest of certain sections of the public, that is the travelling public concerned, and the providers of transport. I know it is very difficult to explain the way in which I look at it because the wording is so subtle, but I will try and make clear what I mean.
At the present time, the licensing authorities have to consider what is in the public interest, and, in so doing, they take into account the interest of the public in the whole of the country. They are concerned, for instance, with the necessity of maintaining a national railway service, of not allowing unnecessary transport facilities on the roads, and with other relevant matters. But by shifting the emphasis and removing the word "primarily" as a prefix to the interest of the public generally, it brings the matter down to the narrow viewpoint of the local situation and not to the country and the public interest as a whole.
This will mean that when the licensing authorities come to consider whether a licence should be granted or not they will have regard to the local situation, to whether the local public desire additional services and whether the operators wish to provide additional facilities. That is what it states here about those requiring facilities for transport and persons providing facilities for transport.
It is quite easy for potential road transport users in certain localities to be perfectly willing to say that they will send their goods by those particular vehicles if they are allowed to be put on the road and that they desire to have that facility. There may also be people able to provide that facility, but it may not be in the national interest that it should be provided, because the matter is being regarded from the narrow local viewpoint and not from the viewpoint of whether it will add


congestion to the roads generally or will change the balance as between road and rail transport.
That is the only interpretation I can place on the Clause as at present drafted, because, if there is any other, why was the Clause inserted? There must be a meaning behind it, and there must be a purpose in drafting this subsection in the way it has been drafted. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard.
There is another point. One cannot read subsection (1) without taking into account subsection (3, b). Here, again, there is a fundamental change which requires the licensing authority to take into account the charges that will be made. That is something quite new. Up to now, the licensing authority has not been required under the existing Acts to take into account such charges, and once this requirement is introduced there is the risk of a rate war.
For instance, if a transport operator says to the licensing authorities, "I am willing to operate a bus service," or "I am willing to carry goods," which is relevant to this particular subsection, "at a price lower than those charged by other operators for a similar service," he would, of course, be able to produce a section of the community who would say that they desired to have those facilities for the simple reason that they would then be able to send their goods at a cheaper rate than through existing operators.
Such an arrangement, of course, points the way to rate cutting on the profitable traffic and brings us back to the discussion we are always having as to the possibility of there being operators carrying only the profitable traffic while the public sector or those who are public minded are left with the unprofitable traffic. But if the licensing authority is to take into account the charges which the potential operator is going to make. it will, in many cases, have to grant a licence because the proposed rates undercut existing operators, and, of course, because there is a demand for those cheaper facilities.
If we look at each case individually, it has to be admitted that we are undermining our licensing system and are not having regard to the public interest. A rate war would certainly not serve the interests of the community as a whole.

Under-cutting would produce excess facilities, congestion on the roads, and the danger that the unremunerative public services would not continue owing to the fact that those operating profitable services use the revenue from them to cover the loss on the unremunerative services.
This, of course, is one of the results of the licensing system, the system of restricting the number of operators, whether passenger or goods carrying, which enables the licensing authorities to influence the providers of transport to give a certain service where it is required and which they might not otherwise be willing to give. The protection which they get by restriction enables them to be sure that they will not be faced with excessive or unfair competition. Therefore, they can provide services which may be less remunerative than certain of their other services.
As I said at the outset, this is a very complicated provision, and I think it is regrettable that the Minister should have decided to introduce this subsection of a Clause into a Bill to which it is not relevant. It cannot in any way affect the denationalisation of road haulage, and I believe it would have been far better had the Minister followed the precedent he set in regard to road passenger services and appointed a Committee to look at the whole question of licensing. It is not fair in a major Bill of this kind to alter the whole balance of the licensing system, especially when, as I have stated, that system was agreed by both parties. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider this subsection with a view to withdrawing it so that the point may be given far more serious consideration.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps it would be to the convenience of the Committee if I gave the reply straight away. I am not so hopeful as to imagine that it may not demand further replies from me later on, but, in order to focus the discussion on the relatively limited points which arise on this Clause, I will deal straight away with the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
I can assure him that there is nothing at all sinister in this, although I quite agree that the matter is of sufficient importance to be worthy of proper discussion. The hon. Gentleman referred to


the 1930 Act, and when we get to Clause 16—we shall have three hours on that Clause—I shall be able, I hope, to make a few observations on the Thesiger Committee. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not deal with it now.
Let me say straight away that both the 1930 Act and the 1933 Act are, I think, freely accepted by both political parties, and by the mass of public opinion outside. This Clause does not in any way do some of the great disturbing things that the hon. Gentleman fears. It certainly does not shift the emphasis from the need of the public to the interest of transport. It shifts the emphasis from the providers of transport to the users of transport. Later I will give illustrations in a little more detail of exactly how it does that.
6.0 p.m.
Our purpose—and this makes this Clause very relevant to the Bill—is to secure more freedom in the issue of carriers' licences for road goods vehicles where it is apparent that a better service can be provided. We believe in freedom and ordered competition, and I certainly have no wish to establish a closed shop for capitalists. It is for the good of everybody that the power to enter a business of this kind should not be unreasonably restricted. We do not need a committee to inquire into this, for we have had nearly 20 years' experience of the working of this 1933 Act, and it has worked very well indeed.
But the 20 years' experience has led us to think that a body of case law is being built up, the facts of which are prejudicial to the public interest. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the onus of proof has hitherto lain fairly and squarely on the applicant for a licence. I shall not weary the Committee with many illustrations, but these are some of the cases that come to my Department and my predecessors must have been conscious of them and some of the comments which are made. Here is one:
In addition to proof of persons ready and willing to employ him, an applicant must satisfy the licensing authority that the work cannot be done by other existing carriers, road or rail.
How can an applicant prove that? It cannot be done by another supplier.

Again:
Although it is a fact that there is available work for the applicant, the licence shall not be granted unless he proves there is no other carrier able to do it.
While he may not necessarily get that information, he has the information that there is a desire for a better service. Then, again, the burden of proving an objection lies not with the objector but with the applicant.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order. The Minister appears to be reading from an official document. May we have it laid upon the Table?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These are all abstracts from the decisions of the appeals tribunals which are published. I will provide the hon. Member with the information as to where he can get them. They are not confidential, and if he feels that he would like to see them I will provide him with the details. I have only given a few illustrations.

Mr. Fletcher: May I have your Ruling, Sir Charles? I understand that the Minister has quoted from an official document. He says he can tell us where it can be found, but he has not told us what it is. I understood the rule to be that if the Minister quotes from an official document it should be laid on the Table.

The Chairman: I am under the impression—I have not got the Manual of Procedure at the moment to look it up—that what must be laid are what are called State documents, and I do not think that this comes under that category. It is available anyway, so I do not have to rule on it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have given a few illustrations and I could give many more, but these are brought to show this conclusion, that the burden of proof should be tilted. It is tilted and shifted in this Bill. One of the consequences of the difficulty of a new applicant getting a carriers' licence is—

The Chairman: I have now had time to look up the Manual of Procedure. It says:
If the Minister of the Crown quotes in the House a dispatch or other state paper which has not been presented to the House, he ought to lay it on the table.
I do not think that that could possibly be brought in under this Clause.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think I went against that rule.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Is not a duty laid upon a Minister, even if it is not necessary for the document to be placed upon the Table, clearly to give the source of his quotation?

The Chairman: The Minister has done that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very prickly about this. It must be because they have a feeling that there is a great deal to be said for these changes and they do not like the evidence being produced whereby that conclusion has been reached. I would have read in each case the particular district where the decision was given—

Mr. Thomas: That is what we want.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —but I was sparing the time of the Committee. I was not trying to hide anything, and there is no sinister intention in reading out what I did. There are about 50 cases shown on this sheet, and I will be glad to show them to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) afterwards, if he wishes, and he can raise the subject any time he likes after that.

Mr. Thomas: Make it available for the use of Members now.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is our conviction that one of the consequences of this difficulty of new entrants to get licences has been this huge growth in the number of C licences which has distorted road traffic. Whereas between 1947 and 1952 the number of A and B licences only increased by 8,000, the number of C licences nearly doubled from 487,000 to 820,000. I do not want to place too much importance on that argument, but I believe it has been a factor in the very substantial growth of C licences.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but my distinct impression is that there has been a similar growth practically in every other country, and in a number of other countries the number has been even a larger one as between the vehicles corresponding to these two types.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find,

taking the European illustration, that the disproportionate increase between C and A and B licences is mirrored elsewhere. That would provide an interesting subject for discussion, but I am afraid it would be a little out of order now.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) is moving an Amendment to Clause 8 to leave out Subsection (1). The next Amendment which he proposes to move draws attention to the change in emphasis, and he says we are now putting the emphasis wrongly on the objector and not on the applicant as it ought to be. But, as I hope I have made it plain, it is in our view right that an applicant, who cannot have all the information on which he can base his case under the old procedure, will be able himself to prove that the emphasis should be on the objector to prove that there is no need.
Of course, an applicant cannot go to the licensing authority and demand a licence. He has got to show that some need exists, but what he has not got to do under these new proposals is to disprove that existing services are adequate.

Mr. Mitchison: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope I may be allowed to develop this argument, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it is a complicated matter.

Mr. Mitchison: I want to raise a point of order. I do not object to the Minister developing this some time, but are we discussing this Amendment? What I understood we were doing was discussing the subsequent Amendment as well, which begins by leaving out lines 36 to 38. Those are the lines which relate to the onus of proof.

The Chairman: We are discussing only one Amendment now. The Amendment mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman is the next one to be called.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if these two Amendments could be considered together?

Hon. Members: No.

The Chairman: I am in the hands of the Committee, but I gather not.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We did have remarks from the hon. Member for Enfield, East about the onus of proof, and I felt it only right at this stage to deal with it, but if it is desired by the Opposition—I am in their hands as much as you, Sir Charles, are on a matter of this kind—I am quite prepared to leave the development of the arguments about the onus of proof and of the including of charges under subsection (3, b) to later Amendments. I am not sure, however, that there is an Amendment to omit the charges. The hon. Member did refer to them, and as it is an important point I should not like what he said to go on record unchallenged because I do not think his conclusions are right. I do not think I will have an opportunity to deal with it later, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss these Amendments together.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I see the Minister's point, and there is something to be said for it, that all these things might go together, but there are different points which we have included in the next two Amendments which really make it rather difficult for us to agree with the Minister. I think it would confuse the issue if we took too much at the same time. I suggest we stand by the first Amendment and discuss it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will do exactly what you rule, Sir Charles, and what the Opposition wish in this matter. Had I been here at the moment that this Amendment was moved I would have suggested that we should take all these Amendments altogether. I think it was my first departure from the Committee, and it was for only three minutes. I would have suggested that it might be for the general convenience to do so. What the hon. Gentleman said on charges ought to be dealt with at some time, and perhaps I might deal with it briefly now, since the hon. Gentleman gave a great deal of attention to it.

The Chairman: The Guillotine will fall at 7·30, and there are still many Amendments to be called.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order. In opening the discussion, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) devoted practically the whole of the time to a discussion of subsection (3, a, and b). May I

suggest that it is nearly impossible to dissociate the matter in subsection (1) from the matter in the paragraphs to which I have just referred, because the traffic courts and the licensing authority deal with matters in such close association that the Amendments are practically inseparable?

The Chairman: On that point, I was advised that the Amendments can stand by themselves.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I put a specific point to the Minister about subsection (1). I wanted to know the reasons for the change, and I am sure that he can answer that point without discussing the whole Clause.

Mr. Powell: I submit that subsection (1), although the Amendments to it do not hang together, is, in a sense, consequential upon the rest of the Clause. The subsection is necessitated partly by the changes in the law which the rest of the Clause makes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my submission. It is therefore impossible to discuss subsection (1) without explaining the tenor of the Clause upon which it is consequential.

The Chairman: I can only go by the advice which I get from my advisers. That advice is that these Amendments can stand by themselves.

Mr. Powell: I was not denying that. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] No. I was saying that the Amendment can be dealt with only by explaining the whole Clause, since the subsection expresses the effect of the alterations in the law which the rest of the Clause makes. Although, therefore, the different Amendments are separate, it is not practicable to justify subsection (1) without a full discussion of the effect of the Clause as such.

The Chairman: It is rather difficult for me to answer that argument because I do not happen to be a lawyer, or an expert in any way; but I do get the best possible advice, and I stand by it.

Mr. Callaghan: At the risk of detaining the Committee a little longer, I would point out that subsection (1) relates to Section 6 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act dealing with the licensing authority's duty as to the granting or refusing of a licence, and subsection (3) relates to Section 11 of the Act, which


is entirely different and is drawn separately for the purpose of dealing with objections to applications for licences and with variations of licences. This fact, I suggest, underlies the Ruling which you have given. Therefore, if it was possible in the Act for those two subjects to be separated and to be put into different Sections, why is it not possible for us to discuss them separately now?

The Chairman: I can only offer the hon. Gentleman my thanks for that support, which I do not understand.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are considering the Amendment to leave out subsection (1), which proposes that instead of the words in Section 6 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933,
shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring, as well as of those of persons providing, facilities for transport,
there shall be substituted:
shall have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport.
The effect will be to put the public need for transport into a more important position than it was before. In our view, that is as it should be, and I commend subsection (1) to the Committee with confidence.
On subsection (3), the hon. Gentleman referred to the inclusion of charges as one of the factors of which the licensing authority, for the first time, must now take cognisance. I will not go beyond a few simple statements on that matter. In our view, it is highly desirable that the question of charges should be in the mind of the licensing authority. It should not dominate his mind, but it ought, along with other considerations, be in his mind.
Were it not that I do not want to get out of order I would read again from the document to show the large number of occasions when the licensing authority have expressly announced that they could not take account of the provision of cheaper facilities because that was not one of those considerations to which they ought to apply their mind. The licensing authority will not, I am sure, take account of charges when the only factor is a charge reduction offered by some

other operator who can give no assurance of continuous or desirable service. If someone came along to make quick profits at cheaper rates it would obviously be very wrong that he should be given a licence to enable him to do so and, as soon as he had creamed the traffic, to depart elsewhere.
All that we are anxious about is that the licensing authority should have regard to charges in deciding whether or not it should grant a licence. There will be no other place in which to deal with that point, except when we discuss Clause 8 as a whole, but there will be another opportunity to deal with the onus of proof on the applicant. I will keep any other remarks I have to make until that moment in our deliberation is reached.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I was very suspicious about Clause 8 (1) when I first read it. I am far more suspicious now that I have heard what the Minister has to say about it.
The subsection proposes not merely a change of emphasis. The suspicions of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) are well founded. The subsection makes a fundamental change in the law. I see no reason why the Minister should try to slip this irrelevant subsection into the Bill dealing with a totally different subject. There is no need for this change in the licensing system to be introduced in this way. The Minister was anxious to get away from the real point of the Amendment and to deal with various other points arising on this Clause. He did not face up to the real argument of my hon. Friend in moving the deletion of the subsection.
The point may look a little subtle at first glance, but if we look into it we find that it conceals a radical change. Section 6 of the Act of 1933, as it stands at present, says that it is the primary duty of the licensing authority to have regard to the public interest. The object of the change proposed in the Bill is to require the licensing authority to have regard primarily to the interests of those requiring facilities for transport and secondarily to the interests of persons providing facilities for transport. In other words, the public interest is relegated to at any rate the third place. Indeed, the public interest is practically


relegated to nowhere, and that is what we object to.
As the law stands, it is the duty of the licensing authority to have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally. That is now being changed into something different. The licensing authority is to have regard to the interests of the public generally, but that will mean, as the new text says, primarily the interests of the consumers and the road hauliers next, with the public interest nowhere. The Minister has not faced up to the real charge. It is quite wrong for the Minister to say that case law has been built up showing the present law is prejudicial to the public interest. On the contrary, case law—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: May I finish the sentence? Case law has shown that the law has been applied in the interests of the public, and that is what the Minister is seeking to change.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was dealing with case law in cases in which the onus of proof is on the applicant and not on the objector. We have postponed consideration of that to a later Amendment. I was not dealing with any case law that may have arisen over the interpretation of these words in the 1933 Act.

Mr. Fletcher: That reinforces what I have been saying. The Minister has now admitted that there is no case law requiring this change. There is no justification whatever for introducing this radical alteration of the law, the only object of which is to prejudice the interests of the general public as distinct from hauliers and their customers.

Mr. Nabarro: I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister has shown a commendable approach to the problems which have inevitably arisen as a result of the 19 or 20 years' experience of the working of the 1930 and 1933 Acts. I doubt whether there is any serious objection, in any part of the House, to the principal provisions of those Acts, other than perhaps the lunatic laissez faire approach on the part of hon. Members on the Liberal Benches opposite, which was suggested on the Second Reading of this Bill, that the A, B, and C licences should be abolished.

Mr. Arthur Holt: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir Charles, to refer to an hon. Member as a lunatic?

The Chairman: We must not call each other lunatics, although the word might be applied to the things we produce.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it not the case, Sir Charles, that the names down to the Amendment represent a whole party and that one can libel a whole party quite safely?

The Chairman: That was not my Ruling.

Mr. Nabarro: I think that my right hon. Friend's approach to this problem is commendable because, during the period since 1930–33 when these extremely intricate Acts were placed on the Statute Book, there has been built up, not only a vast body of case law, but all the inevitable complexities of interpreting exactly what the statutes mean.
It was for that reason that I was so pleased that my right hon. Friend a few weeks ago established the Thesiger Committee. In reply to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who intervened to say, "Why have a Committee in the case of passenger road transport and not one in the case of goods transport?" I would say that there are special problems relating to passenger transport which it is urgently necessary should be elucidated. For instance, the whole of the state of the law in regard to private parties carried by passenger road transport is in such a confused condition today that it urgently needs clarification and, perhaps, making the subject of future legislation.

Mr. Irvine: While granting that it may be desirable to have a change in the licensing law in that respect, does not the hon. Gentleman regard it as extremely undesirable that such a change should coincide with a change of ownership of transport?

Mr. Nabarro: I think not. I think that these matters ought to be considered in relation one to another.

Mr. Irvine: Does not the fact that the changes coincide imply that the motive is to assist the new owners?

Mr. Nabarro: I think that suggestion displays undue suspicion. I think that it is desirable that these problems should


be considered in association with one another. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) made great play of rather intricate changes which the first subsection of this Clause will create. I think there is nothing undesirable in the words:
the interests of the public generally … including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport.
Surely the proper interpretation of that is that the licensing authority must have overwhelming regard to public demand. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say "overwhelming" because the public demand, in this context, is a demand for a road service, and the public are entitled to expect that the licensing authority shall have a prior regard to the provision of the necessary facilities.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not going to contend that the licensing court should have primary consideration for a particular applicant? That is the point.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not suggesting that. I have not suggested any favouritism in respect of a particular applicant. What I have said is that there should be a prior regard to the public need, which is an altogether different consideration.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Gentleman has changed his stand. He did not use the word "need" before. He said, "If there is a demand." Demand does not correspond with need. The whole argument which I put forward was, that when we bring charges in, we will always find a demand for services at the lower charges which are available. That is the basis of my argument.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not intend to devote much of my short intervention to the question of charges because you, Sir Charles, ruled earlier that we should have a full opportunity to discuss them later. [Interruption.] I think that it was your Ruling, Sir Charles, that subsection (3, b), dealing specifically with charges, would not be the principal consideration during this Amendment.

The Chairman: I did not promise that it would be discussed, because the Guillotine falls in an hour's time.

Mr. Nabarro: We shall have an opportunity of discussing it on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: Very probably not, if the Question has to be put forthwith

Mr. Nabarro: Let me return to the point of demand and need. Demand and need in this context are, in my view, practically synonymous. I think that it is only an attempt to make a clever debating point on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East to suggest that otherwise is the case. In connection with this general matter of the interpretation and the consideration of charges as one of the relevant factors which will be in the discretion and in the consideration of the licensing authority, I believe that in the last 15 or 20 years the licensing authority has, in many instances, considered these problems in rather an artificial atmosphere, in not being able to consider the relevance of the charges.
I have never belonged to a school of thought which says that charges should he the sole arbiter of whether a new service should be provided. That would be clearly wrong. But it is reasonable to say that charges are one factor, and a very relevant factor, particularly where all other circumstances are of equal importance. I believe that it will bring manifold advantages to write into the discretion of the licensing authority the factor that charges may be made one of the subjects to be considered, but not the principal one.
I can see that the importance of the changes in this Clause are that they show a fresh approach to the duties and discretion of the licensing authorities up and down the country. Every hon. Member of this House who has attended traffic courts and listened to the endless arguments that go on about whether or not new licences shall be granted, must realise that the 1930 and 1933 Acts ought to be amended from time to time in the light of the experience of their operation. The Thesiger Committee, on the one hand, was dealing with the passenger side. We believe that Clause 8 of this Bill and the consequential changes in the law will remedy many difficulties and anomalies that have existed on the freight side.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: We have heard a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). His closing remarks were particularly interesting when he


compared this discussion with those of the Thesiger Committee concerning passenger transport. I hope that that Committee was not restricted to an hour and a half's discussion nor subject to the Guillotine. That happens to be the position in which we find ourselves and is precisely the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman for the contention that this kind of proposition should be referred to a more full and adequate discussion on another occasion and not as part of the Bill.
It might also please the hon. Member to refer to the Liberal Party, who are, apparently, the only custodians of the political slogan "Set the people free," as being on the "lunatic fringe"; but that is at least understandable—they stand for private enterprise. What we are getting from the other side of the Committee in the whole of these debates is an attempt to hold on to their old shibboleths of private enterprise and setting the people free, at the same time trying to keep on the shackles and to make them as little recognisable as possible. That is how the difference between us arises.
The argument that the Minister put up in defence of subsection (1) of the Clause was precisely what we expected, and we congratulate him at least on his frankness. What he was saying—it has been repeated more than once, and bears repeating again—is that already legislation provides that licences shall only be permitted where the interests of the public generally are involved—not necessarily any particular section of the public which may be interested in getting a preferential transport system, whether they be a group of farmers or anything else, but the public generally.
The Report of the Royal Commission on Transport referred not only to the question of the most adequate facilities for hauling goods to and from certain points, but the questions of overcrowding of the roads, public safety, the condition of vehicles that are to be used in the interests of public safety and of the safety and well-being of the drivers and others, and the conditions of employment. These are the matters that are covered by the phrase "the public generally" in the original Acts, and it is those interests that

were put in the forefront in those provisions as well as the interests of those persons providing facilities for transport.
What is proposed in the Bill is that the interests of the public generally—that is, all other interests apart from those immediately requiring a road haulage service to and from their doors—shall be dropped completely; that goes out. The licence shall then be granted having regard
to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport.
The Minister has referred to difficulties which, he claims, have arisen in the operation of the licensing system, and he spoke of the complexity of the 1933 Act. But that was not a particularly complex measure in terms of Acts of Parliament. Both the 1933 Act and the 1930 Act were comparatively straightforward, but the Minister referred to that of 1933 as an Act of complexity and involving a tremendous amount of case law. Then, the hon. Member for Kidderminster emphasised that argument and said that that case law was leading to all kinds of difficulties, as anyone who had attended a licensing court would know, and so on. But the speeches of the Minister and of others on the other side are not devoted to a Clause which proposes to abolish the licensing courts. This alteration of the wording will not of itself remove the complexity nor reduce the amount of case law. Indeed, the Bill having brought in other considerations, there will be an increase in the amount of case law and in the complexity, and the argument of the hon. Member regarding the difficulties of licensing courts has, therefore, gone completely.

Mr. Nabarro: I used the argument primarily in regard to complexity and to the building up of a vast body of case law on the passenger side. The need for the appointment of the Thesiger Committee arose particularly to make recommendations as to clarification of the law. It is however, to a lesser extent true in regard to the operation of the traffic courts on road freight traffic.

Mr. Hynd: I thank the hon. Member. I completely misunderstood his argument, which, I thought, referred to the Clause that we are discussing. Apparently, his argument dealt instead with passenger transport. The Minister certainly was


referring to road haulage licences, and I think that his case goes completely once it is recognised that he is not trying to abolish these courts nor trying in any way to simplify the procedure.
Has there at any time been any official recommendation from the licensing authorities or from any other official body that the conditions of the 1933 Act are inoperable, or that they are too complex and complicated and ought to be altered? One or two instances of difficulties which the Minister quoted are not of course, unexpected, in any kind of courts where all kinds of circumstances and conditions can be argued, and one can point to individual cases where it is submitted that certain difficulties exist.
What was the reason for the licensing courts? When one talks about the difficulties since the 1933 Act, are we forgetting entirely the difficulties that existed prior to that and which made it necessary for these courts to be set up? Would any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite seek to suggest that the conditions of the roads in the interests of the public generally, the general condition in road haulage in the interests of the employees, the efficiency of service or any other aspect of conditions, have not improved since the 1933 Act largely because of the licensing system?
Let me remind the Minister and his colleagues that the Royal Commission on Transport in 1931 from which these licensing arrangements sprang, reported on the large number of newcomers which had created a condition which amounted almost to complete chaos. Part of the Minister's argument in favour of the Clause is that he wants again to encourage more newcomers. He wants to go back as quickly as possible, presumably, to the chaos for which the Commission was set up to try to find a solution, and part of which solution was in the licensing system.
One could quote in extenso from that report to show the conditions that existed at the time, but I only remind the Minister of this. Not only the evidence of the Transport and General Workers Union, but the evidence of the National Road Transport Employers Federation, the long-distance road haulage Committee of Inquiry and other organisations of the kind, both on the workers' side and on the employers' side, admitted and

accepted the necessity for some kind of control over the chaos which had been created on the roads precisely because of the large number of newcomers who had come in in order to create the competition of which hon. Members opposite are so fond. It was because of their evidence that the licensing system was set up.
In the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission, paragraph 331 of the Report says:
We have on the one side organised undertakings bound by their statutes, agreements, rules, practices, and all other adjuncts which are associated with a highly organised business; while on the other we find that the goods branch of the road transport industry is in a condition which lacks all unity and is operated by a number of independent firms and individuals who, while endeavouring to compete with other forms of transport, are at the same time engaged in bitter and uneconomic strife with each other in their own particular branch.
Those are the conditions which led to the setting up of the licensing arrangements, and it is in order that these conditions should not be destroyed, so that there should be, at least, some kind of control on the number of vehicles to be let loose on the roads and to prevent a return to the kind of conditions to which the Report of the Royal Commission refers, that we are strongly opposed to the alteration that it is sought to make in the conditions for the issue of licences.

Mr. Holt: Would the hon. Member explain to the Committee that the serious conditions which he said existed in the transport industry in the early 1930's also existed in nearly every other industry in the country at the time—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and will he explain why the Government of the time did not think it right to set up a licensing system in those industries as well?

Mr. Hynd: That is a most astounding proposition. Surely the hon. Member is not unaware of the developments in transport since the end of the 1914–18 war and the completely unprecedented situation which had arisen owing to the loosing of hundreds of thousands of vehicles on to the roads, which had never been there before. I recommend him to read the Report of the Royal Commission and he will find a completely unprecedented set of conditions in the situation which had arisen in road transport.
This was not the first Royal Commission on transport by any means but, because of those facts, its Report was followed by two Acts of Parliament attempting to bring order out of chaos. There was the London Passenger Transport Act, which was not passed by a Labour Government. That organisation has had much longer to co-ordinate its services and set up the efficient service which it provides than either the Road Haulage Executive or the Transport Commission have had. I recommend not only the hon. Member who interrupted but the Minister and his friends, who are seeking to go back to those conditions, to study the conditions which led to that situation and I hope that the Amendment will be agreed to.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): It may possibly be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a word or two about the legal effects of Clause 8 (1). As I read it, there is no less consideration for the interests of the public in the words proposed to be substituted than there were in the original words. Originally, the Act said:
shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally
including certain matters. Now there is substituted the words:
shall have regard to the interests of the public generally
so even more emphasis is being placed on the interests of the public—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—I am sorry, but I am simply offering an opinion; it may be wrong. The words following are introduced by the word "including" and not "consisting of." Therefore, the words
primarily those … requiring facilities … and those … providing facilities
are included in the public generally and the provision does include, "other interests of the public."
But the first public interest to be considered is that of those requiring facilities for transport. With great respect to those who may think otherwise, I should think that there is no justification at all for saying that the public interest is any less to be considered—in fact, on the wording it is actually given more consideration than before.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Why change it?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure we are grateful to the Attorney-General for coming here and offering an opinion on the matter with his usual lucidity. None of us would claim that we were right on matters of this sort. I cannot claim any legal experience, but I have a nodding acquaintance with the way these things have worked out so far. What would be interesting to have from the Attorney-General would be his view as to what practical difference the new words will make to the operation of the licensing system. I was hoping that the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us that and, as we are in Committee, I would gladly give way, either now or a little later, if he could give us an opinion on that point.

The Attorney-General: I am glad to point out that the wording it is proposed to adopt makes it quite clear that in considering the interests of the public the first thing to be considered is persons requiring facilities of transport and only secondly the interests of those providing transport whereas, originally, there was no priority assigned and, in fact, the priority was of a different character because it was primarily the public and then some unspecified interest.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to follow this a little further with the Attorney-General. If it is his view that persons who require facilities shall have first priority and that those who are to provide facilities are to have second priority what about the rest of the public? As I understand the public they comprise not only those who provide and those who require facilities, but also another great body of persons concerned with such things as my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) referred to, considerations of road safety, capital investment, and so on. Where do they come into the picture?

The Attorney-General: I do not know what the consequences of this are, but I am telling the Committee what I believe to be the construction of it. They come in in "interests of the public generally," not primarily or secondly but, I presume, tertiarily.

Mr. Callaghan: I take it that tertiarily means "down the course" and that is exactly what we thought was the object.


They are in the race; they are third and last—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They get a prize anyway, for being third.

Mr. Callaghan: The Attorney-General has done a great service and we are obliged to him because he has elucidated what the Minister failed to elucidate, that the provision is being altered in such a way that the interests of the public as distinct from those who require transport shall be considered last.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: If the Minister shakes his head at that it is clear that he was not listening to what the Attorney-General said. The Attorney-General said "tertiarily" and tertiarily, I understand, means thirdly.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What I shook my head at was the hon. Member trying to put in his own words what my hon. and learned Friend had said, with which, naturally, I am in agreement. In recapitulating what he claimed my hon. and learned Friend had said, the hon. Member claimed that he had spoken of providers of transport coming before those who need transport, but he never said anything of the sort. What he said was the public needing transport, then the providers and then other members of the public.

Mr. Callaghan: If I said that, I withdraw straightaway; that is not what I meant. As the Minister has put it—and I hope I have it right this time—those who need transport come first, those who provide transport second, and the public interest comes third.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: There can be no other interpretation. The Minister still shakes his head, but I cannot think what for this time. It is clear from what he said that they are tertiary. They are third on the list and that is exactly the criticism we make of the Minister in this connection. It is, of course, in line with his Election promises because the Government promised that the interests of road hauliers should come first. We have always assumed that that was their case and there is no reason at all why that should be written into an Act of Parlia-

ment, but it is a little naked to write it in this way. Nevertheless, we understand that if they wish to put the interests of road hauliers above the interests of the public—

Mr. Richard Fort: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the hon. Member has anything to contribute to the difficult and intricate point on which we are engaged, but if so, I will give way.

Mr. Fort: Surely the hon. Member is trying to make a distinction where no distinction exists, as between the interests of the consumer and of the public; the consumer interest is, in fact, also the public interest.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Callaghan: I must say that I do not think that the hon. Member's intervention betrays a proper degree of understanding of this problem. I will give an analogy. Supposing a farmer in an isolated farm—and this is an analogy, Sir Charles, in case you think I am getting out of order—feels that his farm needs to be connected with electricity. It is in his interest that it should be connected with electricity, but will it neccessarily be in the interests of the public generally? May there not be a distinction if it involves a great deal of capital investment in order to take the cable to the farm? Surely there is a substantial distinction.
I depart from the analogy and return to the particular matter with which we are concerned. There is a case in which the interests of the public generally may be different from the interests of the person who needs the transport and certainly different from the interests of those who provide the transport. The Attorney-General has stated quite clearly—and his first and brief intervention has been most illuminating—that the public interest generally comes third in this race. [HON. MEMBERS: "Last."]I wish to put it as politely as I can. My hon. Friends will insist on saying "last," but I think that prejudices the issue; it comes third out of three. I hope that is a satisfactory way of putting it. Indeed, that is what we should expect to find, and we are obliged to the Attorney-General for making it so clear.

The Attorney-General: May I make one point clear? The word "primarily" includes all those members of the public who require facilities for transport, ex hypothesi.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to retreat from what he said.

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, I have no more to say on the matter; the public interest comes third out of three.
The Minister made no case at all—if I may return to the Minister—for altering the substance of this Clause. What does he hope to achieve by it? As I understand, he hopes to secure an easier entry for road hauliers into the industry. That is his stated objective. May I put this to the Minister: in what way, excluding the period of nationalisation—because we are going back to the pre-nationalisation period now—have those who required transport not been able to secure it? Can the Minister give any illustrations of people who wanted transport and were unable to get it?
The Minister has no justification for altering the balance of equality between provider and consumer in order to tilt the balance on the side of the consumer. We should like to hear further from the Minister about this subsection so as to see what is his justification, but it is my own view that those who needed transport under the 1933 Act had it provided for them.
Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe pointed out, the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, was designed to limit the entry of road hauliers into the industry. It was designed to restore the balance between the consumer and the public interest generally, on the one hand, and the road hauliers, who were tumbling over themselves on the road in an uncoordinated chaos which was of no general public benefit, on the other hand.
The Minister is returning once again to the position before 1933 in altering the substance of the wording in the Clause. We have heard that that is so, both in what he has said and in what the Attorney-General has said, although I am bound to say that such is the obscurity

of this form of wording that persons, possibly not as well qualified to speak on these matters as the Attorney-General, but with long experience in administering the 1933 Act, have told me that in their view it will make precious little difference. It is not for me to adjudicate between the Attorney-General and those who administer the 1933 Act.

The Attorney-General: It is a question of law.

Mr. Callaghan: It is not for me to interpret the matter, but it is for the Minister to tell us whether it is his intention to make entry into road haulage easier. If it is, it will then be for the licensing authorities, as far as they can, to strain to accept his dictum and to try to secure easier entry into road haulage. I hope the Minister will tell us where the existing procedure fell short. I think he has a duty to tell us that before he asks us to change the system.
May I repeat a question asked previously from the benches behind me: have the licensing authorities made any representations to the Minister that the existing Act is difficult to administer and that they would like it changed because they feel they are unable to provide the facilities which the consumers of transport need? It is important that we should know whether the Minister has had any such representations, because if he has not, we can presumably deduce that the licensing authorities are not dissatisfied and that they can administer this Act in such a way as to give those who need transport the facilities they need—because that is one of the duties laid upon the licensing authorities. I do not know why the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) should look so scornful. It is certainly one of the duties laid down that they shall ensure that those who need the facilities in fact get them.

Mr. Nabarro: The point is this: the perplexity of the statute as it exists is leading to inconsistencies, traffic court by traffic court, up and down the country, and it is, therefore, desirable that the position should be clarified.

Mr. Callaghan: If it were a fact that this form of wording simplified the task of the licensing authorities, then no doubt there would be validity in what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am advised on some authority that this will not make


the job of the licensing authority easier; indeed, some say that it will make no difference except to make it easier to grant licences.
I do not know what the final result will be, and we shall have to wait to see; but nobody should consider that this change makes the situation any clearer from the point of view of consistency in the practice between one licensing authority and another. It will mean that the 12 licensing authorities will do what they have always done—make up their minds whether they think the facilities are needed and provide them where necessary.
Finally, in my opinion the Clause is not necessary to the Bill. It has nothing to do with the generality of the Bill—the disposal of road haulage vehicles. That could take place without Clause 8 being in the Bill at all. One of my hon. Friends intervened to say that this change at the moment of ownership seemed to give some undue advantage to road haulage. Whether that is true we do not know, but it is certainly unnecessary to the Bill. When we have a Guillotine procedure, why should the Minister endeavour to shove through this profound change—according to the Attorney-General that is what it is—in the licensing system, a change which places the public interest last?

The Attorney-General: I said nothing about anything profound. I leave that to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for assuring us that he has said nothing profound. But he has told us that the public interest, which used to come first, is now to come third; and, to me at any rate, that is a profound change, because it represents a fundamental change in the balance which has existed under the Road and Rail Traffic Act since 1933.
There has been no inquiry into this matter. Certainly, there was not at the time I was at the Ministry of Transport, which, I admit, is three years ago; I heard no representations from the licensing authorities on this matter and I certainly heard of no case in which they felt they were unable to provide the facilities which were needed. What evidence has the Minister, and what

representations has he received, which make him write into a Bill which we are considering under the difficulties of the Guillotine such a profound change—and I use the word "profound" on my own authority—in the licensing system which has existed for 20 years?
The Minister owes the Committee a fuller explanation than he gave us last time, and to enable us, in the half-hour that remains, to pass on to the other Amendments, I trust that he will give us that explanation.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am ready to speak again. I think the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is making very heavy weather of this case. I never quite know where he stands. This is an attempt to get greater freedom in the granting of licences. It is an attempt to get ordered freedom. At one and the same time the hon. Member tries to get the best of both worlds. He says to the Government, "Here you are, by this Bill, paying off your election debts to the Road Haulage Association." If those who are already hauliers have any vested interest, it surely is that they should be allowed to remain intact without competition in the service they are providing.
The next moment the hon. Member says, as now, "Here you are, anxious that the people should get more freely the licences they need." He cannot have it both ways. Surely the truth is that the statement that we are trying to satisfy election debts is grossly untrue. The claim that here, by this change in emphasis, we are carrying out a profound change of the law is also completely untrue. The hon. Member has developed the habit of following immediately someone who has spoken in the Committee and then trying to give what he recollects of the words used by the speaker preceeding him. He has misquoted either my right hon. and learned Friend or myself.
At no time have we stated that the public interest of those using transport is to come last. The people for whom there should be first consideration surely are the users of public transport, or the people who need it. By these proposals we have put them in the forefront of the considerations to which the licensing authorities must pay regard. Were the


hon. Member responsible for any legislation I do not imagine that he, or his hon. Friends, would put any other body of people in front of those who need transport.
Surely they should be given the first priority. If, in fact, the hon. Gentleman, or any of his supporters, would like to put some large-scale commission ahead of the people who need transport, that goes a long way towards explaining the difficulties in which we find ourselves in the transport world, and from which this Bill is an attempt to release ourselves. We believe—

Mr. Mitchison: May I put one question to the right hon. Gentleman before he leaves that point? He quite rightly describes this—I will not quote his exact words—as a very small change. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will confirm to him that there has never been a more muddled discussion in this Committee on any single subsection. I would like him to answer this question: why did he put this Clause into this Bill under the Guillotine when a Road Traffic Act is coming along?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Because it appears to us to be part and parcel of the general intention of the Government in this field to introduce a greater basis of competition and freedom, and as we think this is in regard to the whole of the activities of the Commission we feel we should provide facilities for the general liberalising of the granting of licences by this new emphasis and under this new order of priority.
It is our experience that conceivably the wording of the 1933 Act may have tended towards restricted administration of the licensing system in the interests rather of those who provide transport than of those who need it; and as our Bill is designed to be a realistic approach to the needs of the public, we think that this change of wording is desirable. Nothing which has been said has altered our view. If the discussion has taken a somewhat muddled form I would say it is only because it was started by an attempt to deal with the onus of proof which comes on a later Amendment, and on the question of charges, which really were not under discussion.

Mr. Mitchison: Surely, before he sits down the right hon. Gentleman should make clear his proposals in a matter of this sort. He should make them clear enough, not only for the benefit of the Committee but for the licensing authorities, to avoid this kind of confusion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no doubt whatever that the licensing authorities who see the Bill, and who will see the Act, and whose duty it is to interpret the law—a duty they do admirably—will have no difficulty whatever in interpreting the law as it stands. I was asked if the licensing authorities had asked for this change, and I meant to deal with that point. So far as I know they did not. Nor have they protested at this change. I think they can be relied on to interpret the law in their own way and to carry out the law decided by this House.

Mr. Callaghan: I shall detain the Committee for but a moment. The Minister started off by saying that he places the interests of those who need transport first. He was going on to tell us whom he places second and third, but, perhaps because of interruptions, he never got as far as saying that. But I think I am right in saying that he places the interests of the providers of transport second, and the interests of the public generally, third.
No wonder we are getting muddled, because in this subsection there are three classes of persons stated; the general public, those who need transport, and those who want transport. There are three groups of persons clearly stated. The Attorney-General has told us what is his order. Is the order of the Minister different?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman attempts to suggest that a large body of the public have an interest in this field other than that of the public who need transport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] In our view, the people who ought to be put first when we are legislating to provide transport facilities are those who need transport facilities.
So many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite are always dealing with a vast conglomeration, and when they come down to dealing with individual cases they show singularly little charity. They love the world as a whole, but they find hard to regard any individual member of it as a genuine and sincere person. They are


more interested in the public in the abstract than in individual members of the public who need the service. It is our belief that the people who need the service are the public, for the purpose of the Transport Bill, and that they should come first. We believe that these words are actually what they want.

Mr. Callaghan: That really does illumine more clearly the difference in philosophy between the right hon. Gentleman and those of us who sit on this side of the Committee. It is intolerable, after all the years in which the hon. Gentleman has been in this House, that he should not recognise that there is such a thing as a general public interest; and that where he does recognise it he should place it below the interests of a particular section of the public. It is quite clear that he does so, and he cannot dispute it any longer. I think he does begin to recognise that there is such a thing as a general public interest—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: More of them voted for us last time.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister is lucky. He will be saved by the Guillotine in 20 minutes' time, so that we cannot develop this as fully as we would like to. But there will be other occasions. So far as the number of votes that were cast is concerned, I believe it true to say that the Liberals are opposed to him on this matter, and the votes cast for them and for ourselves far out-number the votes cast for his party—

Mr. Holt: I do not wish the Committee to be under any misapprehension. I prefer the Government's subsection and their Amendment, although I would have preferred that we should not have wasted so much time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—in rambling discussions but had got on to later Amendments on the Order Paper in the names of myself and my hon. Friends. Then we might have had a discussion which was worth while.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that the hon. Member meant "wasted" in any filibustering sense, because he knows that this has been a fundamental discussion.
The Minister told us, quite categorically, that he has had no representations from the licensing authorities on this matter. I am not surprised to hear it. I should have been surprised if there had

been any. In other words, they have not felt it impossible to administer the Act as it stood before. It is clear that there has been no case which the Minister could quote to us in which the reasonable interests of providers of transport and users of transport could not be married together. Quite clearly this subsection should not be smuggled into a Bill of this sort under the Guillotine. It should have been discussed. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) for promoting a discussion which has revealed clearly that in the mind of the Government the public interest comes below that of any section of the community. For that reason, we must oppose this provision.

Mr. Edward Davies: There has been a great deal of confusion in this debate. The Minister has said that the intention is to give more freedom to the A and B licence holders. But that is the inevitable consequence of this Clause—

Mr. Nabarro: Very satisfactory, too.

Mr. Davies: That is a view which may be held with sincerity by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but if the result is to get back to the conditions of anarchy which preceded the 1930 and 1933 legislation, that would be disastrous. The problem is that we have a large section of the transport industry under close regulation in terms of law and of charges, and on the other hand the Government are seeking to liberalise, or to give more freedom to, private enterprise in road haulage.
I prophesy that in the event this will prove an impossible proposition both for the traders and for the public. The problem with which the Commissioners were faced was to have regard to the existing facilities and not to overload the roads. They had to attempt to improve the bad conditions which were known to exist. They were certainly not called upon to have regard to charges.
I do not want to widen the discussion, but the Minister mentioned this question and I should like to pursue it before the Guillotine falls. Although he has spoken at length already, I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to say something about what is meant by this reference to charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) put before us the position that if the Commissioners have


to have regard to charges it may mean that if an applicant can say that he can do a job at a cut price or a low rate compared with the existing charges—whether they be railway charges or those of some other firm—he will get the business.

The Chairman: Not only is the hon. Member out of order but he is, I think, outside the wishes of the Committee. I thought that the Committee did not wish to discuss charges.

Mr. Davies: The Minister made a great point of the fact that the Commissioners would have to have regard to charges.

The Chairman: The point was that the public generally would be considered in connection with charges and other matters. I understood that the Committee did not want to discuss charges in detail on this Amendment.

Mr. Davies: There is some confusion. Charges have been referred to and— The Chairman: They might be referred to, but I understood that the Committee did not want to discuss them in detail.

Mr. Davies: I do not propose to discuss them in detail. The important point is that on one side we have a system of regulated charges and on the other there will be this system. In many cases, the railways will be the objectors to the applications made before the Commission. They will argue that there are existing facilities and that it is in the public interest that they should be used. Then we are told that the Commission will have to have regard to charges. Surely that will lead to a rate-cutting war.
The sum and substance of the proposals of the Government are that, whatever the conditions of his employees and his undertaking, if a person can offer a cut-price then he will get the job. This will clutter up the roads and worsen the conditions of the employees. This will spell disaster for the industry generally.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I wish to comment on one argument put forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He tried to make

a strong political point that the Government were putting the general public interest last. I must draw his attention to the wording of this Clause. He said that the Government recognised three interests—the general public interest, the interest of those requiring transport and the interest of those providing it. The Clause shows that one overriding interest is recognised. The words used are:
shall have regard to the interests of the public generally …
Clearly, that is the one overriding interest. The other interests are included within that one overriding interest. The Clause says:
'shall have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport.'
To claim on that wording the party political point that the Government are deliberately putting the general public interest last is absolute nonsense. That claim is not supported by the wording of the Clause.

Mr. Irvine: I wish to underline the point that it is most undesirable that a change in the licensing laws should be slid into the Bill in this way. I regret that the Attorney-General has left us. I should have liked to emphasise this question in his presence. It is objectionable that this important change in the licensing laws should coincide with a change in ownership. It at once, for reasons that anyone would understand, raises doubts about the motives behind the whole business.
Let us consider a different type of licence—a licence for a public house in a new town. Let us suppose that in a provision giving to brewers the right to open licensed premises, there was slid into the Bill some provision altering the law governing that type of licence, enabling closing hours to be extended. In my submission, this is a parallel. Would it not at once follow, like night follows day, that hon. Members would say that the object and purpose was not because it was thought desirable to improve the general law in that respect but to give an advantage to the main beneficiaries in the other Clauses of the Measure?
I am only too willing to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, but I


must say that the conclusion I arrive at is that he has decided that a change in the licensing law is desirable in the interests of the purchasers of these assets. That is why this provision has been introduced. It is not because he regarded the existing licensing law as defective in any respect. That is the motive behind it. This is an extremely shoddy transaction.

Mr. Fort: The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) has adduced yet another reason for attacking this provision which is essential to the Bill. He argued, as many other Members have done, by analogy. I want to try to bring home to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) what we mean by the coincidence of the public interest and the interest of the user. I want to quote an example from his own area. He will probably remember the Forrester case which attracted a good deal of interest in South Wales before the war.
Mr. Forrester and, I think, his relatives built up a haulage service to the villages in the valleys behind Cardiff. They brought goods into Cardiff. They built up a profitable business for themselves, and one which was greatly appreciated by the people of the villages in the valleys, but, when they came to have their licences renewed, the objectors—the railways—said that there were railway lines going up into these valleys, and the licensing authority refused to renew the licences. The result was that a business which had been very beneficial to those living in the villages had to come to an end. Was the public interest served by denying these villages a service which they had been enjoying while Mr. Forrester and his colleagues were able to operate their business, or not?

Mr. Callaghan: If it was not, the licensing authority clearly was not carrying out the task laid upon it by the Act, which laid it down that they were to have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally. I assume that the hon. Member will not deny that they were, when they made the decision, the details of which we do not know, having regard primarily to the interests of the public generally.

Mr. David Jones: If the hon. Member knew a little more

about the Forrester case than he appears to know, and if he knew the roads over which these vehicles were travelling and the type of village which they were serving, he would clearly understand why it was that the licensing authority, on reflection, took the view they did about those vehicles.

Mr. Fort: But was not Mr. Forrester and his colleagues giving a service to those villages which satisfied the people living there?

Mr. Jones: I am afraid not, because there were, in fact, railway tracks, railway stations and railway goods yards equally accessible to those villages as this superimposed road haulage service.
One cannot help feeling—and I am sorry that the next two Amendments to lines 36 and 41 are not likely to be called, and that is why I sought to intervene now—that my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) was quite right in saying that a Clause of this kind written into the Bill must inevitably create suspicion. The Minister says that he has got a whole list of case law. Obviously, he has; he has got a whole list of case law under the 1930 Act, under which, on occasion, he has had to act in a judicial capacity. He had to set up the Thesiger Committee to examine the implications of that Act and report on what changes, if any, should take place.
Why is he treating the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act, which set out to do precisely the same kind of thing for road haulage as the 1930 Act did for road passengers, in an entirely different way? He has done it, I suggest, Because he wants to write into the Bill conditions so far as licensing is concerned which will make it comparatively easy for his friends in the Road Haulage Association, when they purchase the vehicles, to get the business. He may protest as much as he likes that he has no such intention, but he admits, for example, that there has been no demand from the licensing authorities, who are the people best able to judge. How can he judge, after some seven or eight months at the Ministry, that this kind of thing ought to be done? One cannot help feeling that the transfer of ownership of these vehicles is the main cause.
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic


Act also established a Transport Advisory Council, and it was an integral part of that Act that the Transport Advisory Council should report from time to time. That Council reported in 1939, and had something important to say about the competition going on between road and rail traffic. They said:
If allowed to continue unchecked or uncontrolled, the evil results of this competition between road and rail will become more serious, and will not only adversely affect the financial stability of those who provide transport facilities, but will also hamper the development of trade and the economic progress of the nation.
Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be concerned about that, nor does he seem to be concerned about attempting to get order into the road transport industry. Nor, apparently, is he concerned, when he talks as glibly as he did a few moments ago, about hon. Members on this side being concerned about the larger number. Has he no concern about road safety? Are the Minister and his Department not concerned about the number of vehicles to be permitted on the roads of this country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That gives me the opportunity of saying this quite clearly. In my view, and I speak with some knowledge in this matter, though, I admit, no legal knowledge "having regard to the interests of the public primarily"—I do not want to read it all—means that if, in the view of the licensing authority, there was too much traffic operating on a road, they would take that into account first, and would then take into account primarily those requiring transport facilities, and the public interest in the district and the public need for transport are, in that form of words, wholly preserved.

Mr. Callaghan: I am quite ready to accept that, provided that the Minister recognises that he is now giving a completely different view to the learned Attorney-General.

Mr. Jones: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman make up his mind what he does mean by this? He has been very busy all the afternoon and has gone to that Box three times and given three separate explanations of what this Clause

means. He has already argued with some force and a good deal of eloquence that the people primarily concerned are the people who desire transport, but he does not lay down any qualifications about the type of road over which these vehicles have to travel, as a primary consideration. The hon. Member for Clitheroe has quoted a case in South Wales. but there are scores of similar cases all over the country, and, surely, even in the mind of a Tory Minister of Transport the safety of women and children on the roads ought to be the first consideration, particularly when there are other forms of transport available?
In any case, on the Minister's own admission, this is bound to mean more vehicles on the roads, and the greater the number of vehicles on the roads the greater will be the danger. One cannot help feeling that all these alterations, put into this Bill without either need or desire for them at all, are designed to make it far easier for the right hon. Gentleman's friends in the Road Haulage Association to get back into the business.
By the alteration of this Clause, the onus of proof is to be placed on the objector and not on the claimant, which does mean that the licensing authorities will be hamstrung by this form of words. All the experience which they have built up in the past will be of no avail in the future, because the Minister has seen to it that the words going into the new statute will be so tightly drawn that they will have to accede to what he wants.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: We have had some very exaggerated arguments on this Amendment, but I think the hon. Member for The Hartle-pools (Mr. D. Jones) has passed the limit. We have heard the argument that we are giving way to selfish interests—

It being half-past Seven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 255.

Division No. 37.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hurd, A. R.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donner, P. W.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Jennings, R.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Duthie, W. S.
Kaberry, D.


Banks, Col. C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Barber, Anthony
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Barlow, Sir John
Erroll, F. J.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Baxter, A. B
Fell, A.
Lambton, Viscount


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster. Col. C. G.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Fort, R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Foster, John
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Martin


Bireh, Nigel
Fyle, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Linstead, H. N.


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gammans, L. D.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Low, A. R. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Braine, B. R.
Godber, J. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Graham, Sir Fergus
McCallum, Major D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimond, J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bullard, D. G.
 Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKibbin, A. J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harden, J. R. E
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Burden, F. F. A
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Butcher, H.W.
Harris, Frederio(Croydon, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Carr, Robert, (Mitcham)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Carson, Hon. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Channon, H.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Manningham-Butler. Sir R. E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hay, John
Marlowe, A. A. H


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Heath, Edward
Maudling, R.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Cole, Norman
Higgs, J. M. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F


Colegate, W. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mellor, Sir John


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount,
Molson, A. H. E.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Cranborne, Viscount
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E


Crookshank, Capt. RI. Hon. H. F. C.
Holt, A. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Hope, Lord John
Nicholls, Harman


Crouch, R. F.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth,E.)


Crowder, Petro (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horobin, I. M.
Nield, Basil (chester)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nutting, Anthony


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Oakshoft, H. D.


Deedes, W. F.






O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Tilney, John


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Touche, Sir Gordon


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Turner, H. F. L.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Scott, R. Donald
Turton, R. H.


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Osborne, C.
Shepherd, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Partridge, E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Vosper, D. F.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wade, D. W.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Snadden, W. McN.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Soames, Capt. C.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Spearman, A. C. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Powell, J. Enoch
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stevens, G. P.
Watkinson H. A.


Profumo, J. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminister)


Raikes, H. V.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Webbe Sir H. (London &amp;Westminster)




White, Baker (Canterbury)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Redmayne, M.
Storey, S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Renton, D. L. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Robertson, Sir David
Studholme, H. G.
Wills, G.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Summers, G. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Robson-Brown, W.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
York, C.


Roper, Sir Harold
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)



Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Teeling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Russell, R. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Mr. Drewe and


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Mr. Richard Thompson.


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Adams, Richard
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hastings, S.


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hayman, F. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Herbison, Miss M.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hobson, C. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Deer, G.
Holman, P.


Awbery, S. S.
Delargy, H. J.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dodds, N. N.
Houghton, Douglas


Balfour, A.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bartley, P
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Beattie, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bellenger, Rt Hon. F. J
Edelman, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bence, C. R.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Benn, Wedgwood
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Benson, G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Beswick, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Janner, B.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Blackburn, F.
Ewart, R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Blylon, W. R.
Field, W. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Boardman, H.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bowden, H. W.
Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bowles, F. G.
Follick, M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Foot, M. M.
Keenan, W.


Brockway, A. F.
Forman, J. C
Kenyon, C,


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Freeman, John (Watford)
King, Dr. H. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kinley. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Burke, W. A.
Gibson, C. W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Glanville, James
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Callaghan, L. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Carmichael, J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lewis, Arthur


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lindgren, G. S.


Champion, A. J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Chapman, W. D.
Grey, C. F.
Logan, D. G.


Chetwynd, G. R
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacColl, J. E.


Clunie, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
McGhee, H. G.


Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McInnes, J.


Collick, P. H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McLeavy, F.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hamilton, W. W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hardy, E. A.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Daines, P.
Hargreaves, A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.









Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Procter, W. T.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Manuel, A. C.
Rankin, John
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Mayhew, C. P.
Reeves, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Mellish, R. J.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thornton, E.


Messer, F.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thurtle, Ernest


Mikardo, Ian
Rhodes, H.
Timmons, J.


Mitchison, G. R.
Richards, R.
Tomney, F.


Monslow, W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Viant, S. P.


Morley, R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wallace, H. W.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Watkins, T. E.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, William
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Mort, D. L.
Royle, C
Weitzman, D.


Moyle, A.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mulley, F. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Murray, J. D.
Short, E. W.
West, D. G.


Nally, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


O'Brien, T.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oldfield, W. H.
Slater, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wigg, George


Orbach, M.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Oswald, T.
Snow, J. W.
Willey, F. T.


Padley, W. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, David (Neath)


Paget, R. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Steele, T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Pannell, Charles
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Pargiter, G. A.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Paton, J.
Swingler, S. T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Pearson, A.
Sylvester, G. 0.
Yates, V. F.


Pearl, T. F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, John (West Lothian)



Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Porter, G.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan.


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Division No. 38.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fell, A.
Low, A. R. W.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.


Anstruther-Cray, Major W. J
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McAdden, S. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Fort, R.
McCallum, Major D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Foster, John
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McKibbin, A. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Banks, Col. C.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Barber, Anthony
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Barlow, Sir John
Gammans, L. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Baxter, A. B.
Garner-Evans, E. H
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Godber, J. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Gower, H R.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maudling, R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimond, J.
Medlicott, Brig. F


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mellor, Sir John


Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, Sir Robert(Westbury)
Molson, A. H. E.


Black, C. W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Boothby, R. J. G
Harden, J. R. E.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Bossom, A. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Braine, B. R.
Harrison, Col. J.H. (Eye)
Nicholls, Harmar


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow,E.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harvey-Watt, Sir George
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hay, John
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heath, Edward
Nugent, G. R. H.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nutting, Anthony


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D.


Bullard, D. G.
Hinchingbrooke Viscount
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hollis, M.C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Butcher, H. W.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Campbell, Sir David
Holt, A. F.
Osborne, C


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hope, Lord John
Partridge, E.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Channon, H.
Horobin, I. M.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peyton, J. W. W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Howard, Gerald l(Cambridgeshire)
Pickthorn, K. W. M


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cole, Norman
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Colegate, W. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hutchison Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.


Cooper-Key. E. M.
Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)
profumo, J. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hyde, Lt,-Col. H. M.
Raikes, H. V.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hylton-Fester, H. B.H.
Rayner, Brig. R


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Remnant, Hon. P


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Jennings, R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Robinson. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robson-Brown, W.


Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kaberry, D.
Roper, Sir Harold


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, H. W. (Gambridge)
Russell, R. S.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ryder, Capt R. E. D.


Deedes. W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. G. G.
Savoys, Rt. Hon. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Savery, Prof, Sir Douglas


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. k.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Donner, P. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Scott, R. Donald


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott-Miller. Cmdr. R.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Legh, P. R (Petersfield)
Shepherd, William


Drayson, G. B.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough. W.)


Drewe, C.
Lindsay, Martin
Smiles. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Dugdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Llwellyn, D. T.
Snadden. W. McN.


Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lockwood, Lt,-Col. J. C.
Spearman. A. C. M


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, R. M.


Erroll, F. J.

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington. S.




Stevens, G. P.
Tilney, John
Watkinson, H. A.


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turton, R. H.
white, Baker (Canterbury)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Tweedsmuir. Lady
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Storey, S.
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vosper, D. F.
Wills, G.


Summers, G. S.
Wade, D. W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sutcliffe, H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
York, C.


Thomas, Rt. Hon.
J. P. L. (Hereford)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon. W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayoe.


Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.


Adams, Richard
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Albu, A. H.
Ewart, R.
Logan, D. G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Fernyhough, E
MacColl, J. E.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Fienburgh, W
McGhee, H. G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Finch, H. J.
McInnes, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Awbery, S. S.
Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Baird, J.
Forman, J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Balfour, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bartley, P.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Beattie, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Bence, C. R.
Glanville, James
Mayhew, C. P.


Benn, Wedgwood
Gooch, E. G.
Mellish, R. J.


Benson, G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mitchison, G. R


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Monslow. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.


Blackburn, F.
Grey, C. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Morley, R.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bowden, H. W.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mort, D. L.


Bowles, F. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mulley, F. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Murray, J. D.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hannan, W.
Nally, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hardy, E. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hargreaves, A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Burke, W. A.
Hastings, S.
Oliver, G. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hayman, F. H.
Orbach, M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oswald, T.


Carmichael, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Padley, W. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Paget, R. T.


Champion, A.J.
Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Chapman, W. D.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury).


Chetwynd, G. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Palmer, A. M. F.


Clunie, J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pannell, Charles


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
pargiter, G. A


Collick, P. H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parker, J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, J.


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, B.
Peart, T. F.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Porter, G.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughten)


Daines, P.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Proctor, W. T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke N.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rankin, John


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Keenan, W.
Rhodes, H.


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dodds, N. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvenshire)


Donnelly, D. L.
Kinley, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Edelman, M.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Short, E. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Silverman, Julius (Erdingten)




Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Slater, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wigg, George


Snow, J. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thornton, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Sparks, J. A.
Thurtle, Ernest
Willey, F. T.


Steele, T.
Timmons, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Tomney, F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Viant, S. P.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Stross, Dr. Barnett
Watkins, T. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Swingler, S. T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sylvester, G. 0.
Weitzman, D.
Wyatt, W. L.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
West, D. G.



Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Wallace.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Clause 9,—(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS AS TO PRECEDING SECTIONS.)

Orders of the Day — Clause 16.—(REPEALS AND AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT.)

Mr. Alfred Barnes: I beg to move, in page 22, line 11, to leave out subsection (1).
This subsection repeals Sections 63 and 64 of the 1947 Act, which provide for the machinery to establish area road passenger schemes. I do not think that the repeal of these two Clauses should pass without some comment, although I recognise that in view of the operation of the Guillotine one must attempt to ration the available time. Further, I do not expect for a moment that anything that I say will influence the Minister to go back upon his decision. But those are very important sections of the Act, not for what they have actually accomplished but because of the purpose which they represent in relation to the larger problem of transport re-organisation.
It should be placed on record in the debates on this Bill exactly what was the purpose of those area schemes. In the first place, the principle of the area schemes was permissive. There was no principle of compulsion. I should like to have the attention of the Government Front Bench not, as I have indicated,

because I assume that I can convince them, but because it would be probably to their interest and education to listen to this point of view from a convinced Socialist.
As I said, the principle was permissive. Neither the Minister nor the Commission could impose an area scheme on a locality. I recognise the temptation, which politicians always have to resist, to try and obtain quick results for any policy by applying the principle of compulsion. I see that very clearly in this Bill, because the Government are applying the principle of compulsion in reverse and are trying to force the pattern of transport back to a condition that had become obsolete even before the war.
The principle and purpose of the area schemes were based upon a very long experience which I myself had had in the development of London transport, the experience of transport in London between the wars and the circumstances which, in the first place, compelled the Labour Government of 1931 to frame the Act, now known as the London Passenger Transport Board Act. The Conservative Government in 1933 completed that Act and, by the principle of compulsion, introduced the London Passenger Transport Board.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend, who was a Minister and holds a very influential position? Do I understand him to say that other areas should not use compulsion in the way that it has been used in London?

Mr. Barnes: No, I did not say that. If my hon. Friend will wait he will discover the thread of my argument.
I am pointing out that, faced with certain transport circumstances in the Metropolis—and I recognise that the Metropolis represents a different problem from that existing elsewhere—the Labour Government in 1931 and the Conservative Government in 1933 applied the principle of compulsion. They compelled the London General Omnibus Company, the underground railway and all the municipal tramway systems to come together and form what was known as the London Passenger Transport Board.

Mr. Smith: And a good thing, too.

Mr. Barnes: I mention this to point out that when the capital of private enterprise was involved—and the London General Omnibus Company had the greater part of the capital—the Conservative Government of that period did not hesitate to apply the principle of compulsion. It was on the experience that resulted in that co-ordination of London transport that I framed the area schemes. The area schemes machinery of the 1947 Transport Act does not apply the principle of compulsion.
7.45 p.m.
I ask hon. Members to reflect for a moment on some of these problems, because they clearly indicate that when he is handling transport problems the Minister should give deep thought to the variety of the problems in different parts of the country. We have many large municipal authorities in Great Britain who are, naturally, proud of their own local transport service. The needs of the locality, the point of view of the people, their experiences and the differences in their local circumstances prove the case that in transport it is local opinion that should determine matters and not central opinion in London and Whitehall.

Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy in allowing me to intervene again. This is where my earlier question comes in. In the case of electricity, gas and coal it was the national viewpoint that mattered. Is not that principle applicable also to transport?

Mr. Barnes: Not always. That is the point which I want to emphasise and to bring out in the discussion on the area schemes. In my view, it was desirable

that local opinion should largely determine the shape of local transport services. The local opinion of those who use transport in travelling to work, following recreational activities, shopping, visiting, and so on, is very important. However that may be, the point that I am trying to emphasise is that the formation of these area schemes is permissive in character, and I see no ground at all for the Government repealing these facilities just for the sake of doing so.
In the area schemes safeguards were introduced. I have already pointed out that neither the Minister nor the Commission could impose their will on a locality. They had to bring together all the local authorities and all those engaged in transport operations and discuss with them the formation of an area scheme. Secondly, even when that stage was completed the majority opinion in the area could not at that stage impose its decision or its desire on the minority.
The whole of the facts—the case for the scheme and the objections of any local authority or minority view—had to go to the Minister. The Minister's responsibility was to achieve the maximum amount of agreement. Finally, we had the safeguard that if the matter could not be ultimately resolved by local agreement, then in submission to Parliament it had to pass through the special Parliamentary procedure, and again the minority could have an opportunity of presenting their views.
I admit that no area scheme has been formed as a result of that procedure. It is quite understandable why that was the case. The British Electric Traction Company, which was bitterly opposed to the whole principle of the Transport Act, led the opposition to the first scheme proposed in the North-Eastern area. But I submit that that is no case for the Government repealing these two Sections, because in matters of this description if it is proposed to rest on the question of local consent one should give time for local opinion to begin to understand the type of reorganisation that is involved.
I want to put a direct question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it wise, merely for the sake of removing these two Sections, to scrap this machinery? Surely this discloses another motive behind the decision of the Government. They could rest quite easily on the fact that no area


schemes have so far resulted. As a matter of fact, I submit that there is another deeper and, if I may use the word, a more cunning motive behind the proposal to repeal these Sections than the mere fact that no area scheme has resulted so far. I cannot overlook the fact that in the three or four years during which the British Transport Commission has been in existence it has been able to purchase practically the major proportion of the road passenger services in this country.

Mr. G. Wilson: How does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at that fact? Would he not agree that the British Transport Commission only control one in five of the buses in the country areas?

Mr. Barnes: No, certainly I do not. If we take away the local authorities' transport services and give them to the private road passenger services, leaving out the contract carriages—the public schedule services—the British Transport Commission, by voluntary purchase, acquired something like 70 per cent. of the road passenger schedule service vehicles.
The purpose of the Transport Act eventually was that as these area schemes developed, these private road passenger services which the Transport Commission had acquired in different parts of the country would be dovetailed into any area schemes that emerged. It is in this sense that we can see the purpose of the Government in repealing these two Sections. As I have indicated, if the Sections resulted in no area schemes, the Government would have no case to do away with them, but it is because they know that later, when public opinion develops, the Commission's road passenger services can represent a very large and effective nucleus when they are dovetailed into these area schemes.
I want to comment on the area schemes for the purpose of bringing out the point that I think there is another motive in the repeal of these Sections, and that is so that eventually there will be no opportunity for local public opinion to move along the same lines as has prevailed in London. The Transport Commission's services were kept on a company basis—I would emphasise that point—and although they took over Tillings, S.M.T., East Anglian and bodies of that

kind, they kept them on an existing company basis until they could be dovetailed into these area schemes.
The Government's intention is to force the Transport Commission to hand the companies back to private operation, and then when we link this fact to the repeal of these two Sections it discloses a very undesirable state of affairs. I am confident that before very long the Government and hon. Members opposite will regret what they are doing in this direction. It is for that reason that I have moved the deletion of this subsection.

Mr. Braithwaite: I intervene at this stage because I gather that hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious not to spend overlong on this Amendment but wish to reach others on the Order Paper to which they attach more importance. In his very fair presentation of the circumstances which surround the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear— and it is very true—that here is a definite collision between the two sides of the Committee—I gather more of a head-on collision with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) than with the right hon. Gentleman, but a collision none the less.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Gentleman can emphasise that as much as he likes.

Mr. Braithwaite: I was not making a point of it. I was merely stating the fact. The hon. Gentleman always states his opinion with great frankness. I am replying at the moment to the right hon. Gentleman who has the melancholy experience of a very proud parent watching the demise of one of his favourite offspring. [HON. MEMBERS: "Murder."] It does not assist our proceedings or avoid the Guillotine to have these interruptions, good-tempered as they may be.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman asks for them.

Mr. Braithwaite: The right hon. Gentleman in his Act of 1947, of course, included these Sections 63 and 64. Their objectives were perfectly clear— to enable the Commission to submit to the Minister schemes for providing adequate, suitable and efficient services of passenger transport in the various areas. The local authorities were to be consulted, as he has indicated. The providers of passenger


services would also be taken into consultation. The procedure then provided for a draft order which could be followed by a public inquiry if objections were lodged, and all the familiar machinery which this House so frequently sets up when dealing with matters of this kind.
8.0 p.m.
Section 64 did lay down certain definite instructions as to the kind of things which would go into these schemes; these include the setting up of authorities—and there was nothing to debar the Commission from being one of them—in these areas to provide passenger transport services and to administer such schemes, and the transfer to such authorities of the passenger transport undertakings within their area. There was also to be a pooling of receipts from passenger services, road or rail, and a definite restriction on services operating otherwise than under the scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) was extremely frank when he disclosed—and here we come to the clear-cut difference between us—that it has been evident for some time that such schemes have very little chance to surmount the obstacles of the procedure of the 1947 Act, owing to strong opposition in the areas where they have been proposed.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of local resistance and patriotism, and of how local authorities were disinclined to divest themselves of their transport services, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the resistance has come—and it is not without significance—largely from the north-east part of the country, where many of the local authorities have large majorities favouring the party of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Only one scheme has been formally submitted, for the northern area. It was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman during his period of office, in June, 1950. He made his observations thereupon, sent it back, and it was re-submitted in June, 1951, some three months before he left office. No further progress has been made since. I think that is a factual statement of the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman postulated the question whether the Government thought it wise to make this change. Yes—we think it is wise, otherwise we shoulds

not be making it. It is in view of these circumstances that we say, in all deference and good temper, that this scheme and machinery has in fact broken down.

Mr. Popplewell: Try the North-East again now.

Mr. Braithwaite: It is always easy to say that one should try again now, but the hon. Member would be the last to deny that that is in fact the history of the matter to date—and it is the history of the matter upon which the evidence rests. It is always easy to say that at any given moment opinion will change. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of throwing a challenge across the House from time to time, but it was in view of the circumstances and, even more, in conformity with our general policy—which is not to enlarge the part played by the British Transport Commission in the provision of road passenger services, and this is where the head-on collision comes between us—that the Government announced in the White Paper of May last that they intended to repeal Sections 63 and 64.
To save the time of the Committee I would just add that we remain of that opinion now. That is why this subsection is inserted in the Bill, and that is why I ask the Committee to uphold us in retaining it.

Mr. Percy Morris: I would not have intervened at this juncture but for the complete failure of the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Transport.
We are faced with this difficulty now because when he was in office he was too cautious, too generous and too patient in his handling of the passenger transport side of the industry, and the provision he made for protracted Parliamentary procedure merely gave opportunities to companies like B.E.T. to engage in active propaganda to destroy any possibility of an integrated scheme being developed. In fact, they used every opportunity to make it impossible for that Act fairly and properly to be implemented.
The Committee have to face the fact that we have to have monopoly of one kind or another. It is either a private monopoly or a public monopoly. If I had to make the choice I should unhesitatingly choose the public monopoly.


What is happening at the moment? The big fish are swallowing the little fish. B.E.T. and kindred people are touring the country acquiring every transport undertaking they can possibly lay their hands upon and forming one of the greatest monopolies in passenger transport that this country has ever known.
Now we are asked to help the Government to develop this private monopoly. One would not worry so much if it were for the benefit of the public, but what is happening? The public are being held to ransom so far as fares, services and stages are concerned, and the greater grip these people have on transport the worse it will be for the travelling public. It is not difficult to foresee that if the Government have their way in this particular matter not many months will elapse before this enterprise of the B.T.C., directing about 70 per cent. of passenger transport, will be handed over to speculators.
Transport is a public service. It is almost as essential as coal and light, and if men are going to earn a decent living at not too high a cost they should be able to get transport at a reasonable figure. But instead of that we find that transport is becoming more expensive day by day and a major part of that expense is in order to provide speculators with profit.
Why should something that is absolutely essential to the life-blood of industry and the prosperity of our people be left to the field of private enterprise? Why should people pay high and ever increasing fares in order to provide dividends for investors? This is a public service that should be in the hands of the public and I hope and trust that when the Labour Party gets into power again they will not be so gentle and cautious in handling this passenger transport problem because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the benefit of an integrated system run on the cheapest possible basis would soon be seen. That is what we have been aiming at for a number of years.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary reply to the point which was made by my right hon. Friend? What is the motive behind this particular suggestion? What do they hope to achieve by handing over passenger transport to speculators again? Many people are under the erroneous

impression that a Government should slavishly follow public opinion, but there are occasions when we should accept our own responsibilities as a legislature and take certain steps to form public opinion and, in due time, be judged by the results. If we did it in our own way in this particular matter we should be quite content to accept the judgment of the British public.
The opposition to the proposals of my right hon. Friend were engineered by people with financial interest in transport, who spent thousands of pounds on advertisements and on organising campaigns, and now they are able to rub their hands in anticipatory glee. They are just waiting for this Bill to have its Third Reading; just waiting for their friends on the opposite side of the House to redeem their promises; just waiting for a Tory Government to say, "The field is yours. Never mind the public interest; never mind public enterprise; you run your buses as you have done up to now and make all the profit you possibly can, and the public will pay because they have to use transport from day to day." It is a shocking Measure, and I hope the Government will think twice about it.

Mr. Powell: I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite are anxious to delete the first subsection of this Clause, because it marks the failure not merely of a tentative experiment—as the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) tried to represent it—but of the principle underlying the Transport Act of 1947.
No argument can be adduced in favour of the integration of freight transport by public ownership which is not equally applicable to the integration of passenger transport by public ownership; and in so far as the party opposite, when they had all the opportunities, first refrained from taking the appropriate steps to create a State monopoly in passenger transport and then found that even the tentative steps they had dared to take were failures, the principle of integration by public ownership as such became discredited.
I have every sympathy for the point of view of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), who said that the parts of the 1947 Act which related to passenger transport ought to have been compulsory, as


were the parts relating to freight transport. Of course they should have been, on the theories on which hon. Members opposite were working. If they believed that they could secure the best service to the public in freight transport only by a State monopoly they should have admitted that they could obtain those same benefits in passenger transport only by an equally complete State monopoly.
But they did not dare to do that, and what little they did dare to do failed under their hands. There has been an attempt throughout this debate to represent the opposition to these freight schemes as having come from capital interests or from speculators. It was not always so, according to the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Transport who, in a franker moment a year ago, said that
so far many local authorities have resisted this process, I think unwisely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July. 1951; Vol. 491, c. 1307.]
The main opposition to these area schemes has not in fact come from private companies or from speculators; it has come from local authorities and ratepayers up and down the country, at the mere threat of such a thing being done.

Mr. P. Morris: The opposition is coming from the local Labour Parties or municipalities who owned their transport system and still believe in the publicly-owned system. They do not want to have it handed back to private enterprise.

Mr. Powell: I appreciate that, but the fact remains that these area schemes broke down primarily because the local authorities, who were operating their own transport, would have none of it. I hope note will be taken by local authorities throughout the country of the threats which have been uttered in this debate, that if the party opposite get the chance they will nationalise the transport assets of local authorities. That has been stated, and I hope the implications of it will be noted by those whom it concerns.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West, and many other hon. Members opposite, are constantly falling into a very simple fallacy. They say that this or that industry—passenger transport in this case—is by its nature a semi-monopoly, that it is hard to conduct a business of this sort unless the various enterprises concerned have some kind of semi-monopoly, that

it is impossible in a field like this to achieve the classical economist's perfectly free competition. Then they immediately jump to the conclusion that therefore we must create a complete State monopoly.
But there is all the difference in the world between, for example, a public service provided by a local authority, which only affords one or two forms of road passenger service and, incidentally, is responsible to its own ratepayers, and a centralised State monopoly, into the hands of which all the alternative forms of passenger transport have been put. Socialism and Socialists constantly ignore the difference between every kind of partial and semi-monopoly and the complete State monopoly for which they stand.
It has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if these area schemes have failed, as they have, and if there were no prospect of going on with these Sections of the 1947 Act, then why trouble to repeal them? Is there not some sinister motive behind their appeal? There is no sinister motive, but the very obvious motive that the repeal of these Sections is consistent with the principle underlying this Bill. This is that integration—that is, the best utilisation of the available resources in the public interest—is best brought about not by a State monopoly but by competition, where the various resources are able to offer their services to the public at charges which generally reflect the economic cost of providing the service. That is as true of passenger transport as it is of freight transport.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Popplewell: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he hopes to get any competition in road passenger transport in view of the developments which have already taken place, and particularly those which took place in pre-war years when small companies were absorbed by a larger one, a process which has gone on ever since?

Mr. Powell: Apart from the fundamental difference between a semi-monopoly and a complete monopoly, the hon. Member will be aware that this Bill revolutionises the position of the railways in regard to charges, not only freight charges but passenger charges


as well. Therefore, the ground is cleared for genuine, economic competition between road transport and rail transport.
In the second place, as the hon. Member for Swansea, West was saying, under this Bill it will be possible, subject to the licensing authority, for anyone to seek to give a better service to the public. The fact that groupings may take place—groupings rise and fall—is no prejudice to the underlying principle that in this Bill whoever can provide a better service in road passenger transport for the public will have the opportunity to do so within the licensing system. So the repeal of these Sections is neither accidental nor incidental. It is fundamental to the purpose of the Bill and consistent with the principle which underlies it.

Mr. McLeavy: The decision to repeal the Sections for the provision of area schemes is a retrograde step, as I know from personal experience of different areas in passenger transport. I do not know if hon. Members realise that the abolition of area schemes would not eliminate a number of passenger vehicles from the road and would increase the danger on the roads themselves. Apart from that, area schemes ensure that both the agricultural and the thickly populated areas of the country are properly served with adequate services.
Those of us who have had experience with road passenger transport know how difficult it is to get an undertaking to run an unprofitable service in the country areas and to balance it against the more remunerative routes. I remember one such case, and if the Minister cares to examine the position he will find hundreds and hundreds of cases throughout the country where such a refusal stands as a monument to the stupidity of so-called private enterprise in the field of road passenger transport.
I will give the Minister one instance, which happened within my personal knowledge. A hospital was built in the country by a county authority, and it was served only by an infrequent service of a private omnibus undertaking. A corporation bus service came within a mile of the hospital, and application was made to the Traffic Commission to permit the corporation to extend their service to the hospital at all times of the day, to provide facilities for urgent cases, relatives of

people on the danger list, and accident cases, and for the nursing, medical and other staffs. Those are important considerations in maintaining staff in country hospitals.
I am trying to present the picture to the Minister as we found it. The Traffic Commission said, "On the one hand, we cannot allow you to extend on to the preserves of the private bus company. On the other hand, if you care to enter into an arrangement with the company whereby they will get some corresponding advantage, we will rubber stamp the agreement that you arrive at." For nearly two years, people were prevented from getting adequate facilities respecting that hospital. Patients going for outdoor treatment found themselves in transport difficulties and were held up, because private profit was more sacred than the rights of the common people.
That illustrates the history of the passenger transport system of this country, and is why I have always argued that transport facilities should be co-ordinated to get not only a reduction of the number of vehicles on the road but the type of service which I have described as being desirable. By withdrawing the Sections relating to A and B licences, the Minister is destroying any hope for the future of people getting together to provide the type of service that the people want and are entitled to receive.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I want to speak very strongly against the proposal set out in this subsection to repeal certain parts of the 1947 Act. I never forget when the present Prime Minister visited a number of industrial centres during the war and came back to the House of Commons. I remember the mood in which he spoke when he paid a great tribute to the large number of men and women who were standing in cold, wet, snowy and foggy weather, queueing up without shelters, waiting to travel to their employment. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who was then Home Secretary, and his Parliamentary Secretary, Miss Ellen Wilkinson, telling similar stories.
The same conditions exist today. I have them clearly in mind. Men and women are standing now, in fog, rain, and snow, waiting to go on the night shift. It is scandalous that this proposal


is being made, and I am annoyed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, whom I respect because of his record, that compulsory powers were not taken at the time he was in office. I felt it would be wrong for me to sit here knowing the conditions, and not to make a few observations on behalf of those people.
Within 25 miles of where I live, mountains of wealth have been produced for generations, yet more and more we see less of that wealth spent upon providing decent conditions for the people who produce it. In Lancashire and North Staffordshire, and particularly in Stoke-on-Trent, travel facilities for the work-people are simply disgraceful. Now it is proposed in the Bill to repeal even the suggestions made to the localities in the Act of Parliament of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South. What London did 30 years ago we should be pleased to do now. Fundamentally, the proposal in the is a proposal to support the British Electric Traction Company. It means that slowly but surely a monopoly will be created in road passenger transport in all the localities of the country.
Take the City of Stoke-on-Trent, where a great contribution to the export trade is being produced. There are no decent traffic shelters for people when they are queuing up for the mines or the potteries. There is great indignation in that locality because of the lack of shelter facilities. The city council have no control over the local services. We talk about democracy; there is no democracy about it, because the local authority cannot make a contribution to the management of the local privately-owned concerns.
Therefore, on behalf of the teeming millions of people that the south in particular have to thank for saving this country, and on behalf of people in North Staffordshire particularly, I make a protest against any proposal for worsening the traffic facilities of the workpeople in the industrial areas. It is time we did protest against it. Next time we shall have learnt a lesson. I welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Let him rub it in and underline it as much as he can. It will just suit us. Depend upon it, it is only a matter of time before

we shall get political power again, and when we get it we shall have learned the mistakes we have made.
Amendment negatived.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. P. Morris: I beg to move, in page 22, line 29, to leave out "month," and to insert "year."
I think it might assist the Committee if we considered this Amendment and the following Amendment, in line 30, in similar terms, together. In doing so, I will try to be unusually brief.
The Minister has acknowledged on several occasions that the provisions of this Bill have been made against the advice of the B.T.C., but I know that he hopes, at a later stage, to say that he is doing some things with their blessing. In submitting these two Amendments, I am asking the Minister to facilitate the administrative work because one month is totally inadequate. If he will accept the Amendments or tell us in what way he can help, he will earn the gratitude of all engaged in transport.

Mr. Braithwaite: These two Amendments provide for a period of 12 months within which the Commission must lodge applications for road service licences, to cover the activities provided by them at the passing of the Bill, so that they can continue operations until such applications have been determined. Let me say at once, that this seems to us to be an unnecessary extension of time, but I am able to go some part of the way with the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), to see if we can find a common agreement on this matter.
I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the machinery under which these applications have to be made to cover the situation so that the services can continue. Many of the companies affected, as he knows, remain legal entities and their services will continue to be subject to the licensing system. These have been left to operate separately, in spite of the shareholding control now held by the Commission. The services operating outside the London special area, as hon. Members know, is treated as an exceptional case under powers delegated by the Commission, are limited to those provided by the London Transport Executive on the fringe of the London special area


and a few that are operated by the Railway Executive in conjunction with certain municipalities in Yorkshire, notably the Corporation of the City of Sheffield.
All that the Commission would need to do to protect their position is to lodge applications within one month of this Bill reaching the Statute Book. All the necessary particulars for the drawing up of such applications will be available, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Swansea, West appreciates that their preparation can go forward during the later stages of the progress of this Bill through Parliament. Nevertheless, we realise that a good deal of clerical work is bound to be involved, so I am able to make this offer to the hon. Gentleman.
May I remind him of what took place when we were discussing the first Amendment today, when my right hon. Friend, with his usual desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite, made a concession which doubled the period from three months to six? I am going to do even better than my right hon. Friend. I propose to multiply the period by three, and to say to the hon. Gentleman that, if he cares to withdraw his Amendment and to put down another Amendment on the the Report stage, extending the period from one month to three, my right hon. Friend will add his name thereto, thus ensuring its being called and included in the Bill.

Mr. P. Morris: On the last occasion, the hon. Gentleman suggested that he ought not to give me a snap answer. He will not expect a snap answer from me, but I am quite willing to think about it and to see what happens on the Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I beg to move, in page 23, line 16, to leave out "ten," and to insert "seventy-five."
This Amendment goes together with the next Amendment, in line 16, to leave out from "miles," to "from," in line 17.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be convenient to the Committee to take these two Amendments together.

Mr. Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Hopkin Morris.
These Amendments affect the position of the London Transport Executive. Before I say a word or two in favour of the proposals that we have to make, I should like to make it quite clear that my hon. and right hon. Friends refrained from moving the preceding Amendment only because of the time factor. It raised a similar issue, and had there been time we would certainly have moved it and had discussion on it, but like so many other things in this debate it was guillotined almost before it was born.
This proposal of ours affects a very large number of people in the London area, who have been enjoying services which never existed before the setting up of the London Transport Executive. I see no reason whatever for the wording of the Clause which the Government propose. It seems to me to have nothing at all to do with the main purpose of the Bill of de-nationalising long-distance road transport. The Clause limits the services which the London Transport Executive can give to the people of London to an area 10 miles outside the London Transport area, an area which, as far as I can see, is not defined in the Bill.
At present, people in London may make journeys conveniently and comparatively cheaply, many miles outside London. The London Transport Executive have built up a set of services which are of inestimable benefit to the people using them and in building them up they have provided facilities which very considerably assist local authorities in the London area in many of the problems which they have to handle as housing and town planning authorities.
To illustrate the improvement in travel facilities which London Transport have been able to develop, I should like to quote from the section of the Annual Report of the Transport Commission dealing with the London Transport Executive. Paragraph 162, on page 142, says:
Mileage run on country bus services rose from 46·4 millions in 1950 to 47·3 millions in 1951, or by 2 per cent. An increase of about 300,000 miles was caused by the transfer of services in the Grays and Tilbury area from the Eastern National Omnibus Company Ltd. to the Executive on 30th September, 1951.
That service could not be continued under the terms of this Bill as it is at


the moment because it goes well beyond the 10-mile ring.
In paragraph 163 we find:
Mileage run on Green Line coach services rose from 21·8 millions in 1950 to 22·3 millions in 1951, or by 2 per cent., as a consequence of the increase in the service on Route 723 to provide better facilities for the London County Council estate at Aveley and the working of additional journeys to duplicate peak-hour services on certain other coach routes.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the paragraph which his Amendment seeks to amend refers only to contract carriage, and not to the services of which he is now speaking.

Mr. Gibson: I am coming to that. The point I am making is that in the London area there has been a great extension by the Board of very valuable services to the people of London and one of those services has been the contract service. The restriction to a 10-mile limit around the London area cuts that out and makes impossible the provision of convenient and cheap coach services for organised parties to the coast. Why should that be done? I have been concerned with groups of people who have hired coaches from the London Transport Executive to take them as far as the coast, but that would end with this Measure.
So far as I can see the only reason for taking away that facility is a purely ideological one, that the Tory Party dislike public enterprise because in that field it competes very effectively with private enterprise. If the Government want competition in transport they better leave the present facilities which London Transport Executive is able to give and has built up over the last few years and let us have some really effective competition.
The fact is that when this Bill is passed the financial interests which have already been referred to in the debate today will be able to clamp down, as they were rapidly clamping down before the introduction of nationalisation. They will turn what, I admit, is a public monopoly, owned by the community with the aim of providing service to the community, into a private monopoly existing solely for the purpose of providing profits to private individuals. When they can no longer provide profits the services will cease.
In discussion of a previous Amendment, the Minister said he believed there was a public opinion in support of the proposals of the Bill. That cannot apply in London. In London we had a big majority win for the Labour and Socialist candidates in the last General Election. London is still a Socialist city and when the county council elections came we wiped out nearly all the Tory Party. If the Government think they are playing up to some public opinion by this Bill, so far as one-tenth of the community—in the London area—are concerned there is undoubtedly a very strong expression of opinion in favour of a publicly-owned monopoly service for passenger transport. I hope that the Minister will remember that in considering whether to accept the Amendment.
8.45 p.m.
At any rate, it is quite clear what the position is with the contract service. Incidentally, may I say how glad I am to see in this draft of the Bill a provision which makes it possible for the employees of the transport authorities to hire some of their own buses in order to take their children out for the day? That was not permitted in the earlier provisions, and the omission created a great deal of ill-feeling in the London area.
But why mess about with the remainder of the provisions? If many of the people of London want to hire buses from London Transport for services such as taking their clubs on outings and their Bands of Hope on outings, not only to the seaside but to places of historic interest around London, and are willing to pay for it, why not permit them to do so? If they prefer public services to private services, why not give them the choice?

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I rise to support the Amendment. It seems to me that, if we accept the dictum laid down by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and pleaded so eloquently by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—that in certain cases it is desirable that private enterprise should be given an opportunity to compete with public enterprise—here we have the exact corollary. There is nothing in this Amendment to prevent the ordinary contract carriages of private enterprise from operating. There is no question that London Transport are doing this work to the exclusion of anybody else who can


do it better. The answer is that the Amendment will exclude those who do it worse, because the public will take advantage of the company which provides the best and safest service at a cost they want to pay.
London Transport's service is not always the cheapest service, but it may be preferred because of another factor. As a result of running these contract carriages, the London Transport Executive add a valuable sum to their total revenue, so that the service helps the general revenues of London Transport. It also means that the Executive are better able to make an overall use of their vehicles which, of course, are very much subject to peak and low periods of operation. If, by means of this service, the Executive can use their vehicles and labour to advantage and give a good public service, why does the Minister want to stop them from doing so?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) waxed very eloquent about his party having succeeded in wiping the Tories out in London.

Mr. D. Jones: And in Bedford.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In Bedford we have four Conservative Members for the first time.

Mr. Sparks: And the last time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Clapham suggests that it is not only the right of all people in the London area to do what they like in London but that this right is extended so that they can do what they like outside London. Here we are dealing not only with the question of contract carriages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out, but also with a prohibition on the London Transport authority preventing them from going beyond a certain area outside London in contract carriage work. They are going into counties where we do not claim to have wiped the Socialist party out, for in some places, like Sussex, the Socialist Party have never existed.
As the Committee know, the 1947 Act gave the Transport Commission the power to run contract carriages anywhere. The Commission have not directly taken advantage of this power, although companies controlled by them

have done so. Two years ago, as the Committee will remember, authority was given to the London Transport Executive to run contract carriage services 100 miles outside London. In our view this was too wide an extension, and in a moment I will, very briefly, give the reason why it is reasonable to limit this right to the London Passenger Transport area, the old area, and its immediate vicinity, with the addition, also of those staff outings to which the hon. Member for Clapham has referred.
I have received a number of letters from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on this matter and I thought I would put it right straight away in the Bill and not wait, as it might tactically have been wiser to do, and accept an Amendment moved by the hon. Member. The Bill as it is now drawn provides, broadly, the limitations of Section 15 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, and subsection (4, a) of this Clause applies these limits.
There is nothing political in this at all. It is not a question of party politics or party ideology. I would say to the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), whose interventions are always brief and to the point, that if it were possible to have fair competition in this field, then most certainly let us have it. But the London Transport Executive has an absolute monopoly in the whole London area. It is an immensely powerful body. It has absolutely—

Mr. Herbert Morrison: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, let me finish my sentence; I should hope to be equally amenable to the right hon. Gentleman.
From their basis of a full monopoly they are claiming the right—or there are some who are claiming it on their behalf—to go outside that area, and they are backed by the strength which 100 per cent. monopoly position in London gives them. In our view, that is not right. That is certainly not competition as we understand it. We consider we are right to limit this contract carriage right to the London area and its immediate vicinity, with these staff outings also included.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, as we are anxious to get on to the next point. But would


the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes that a private operator shall be limited in his radius in the same way, and, if not, why not?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No private operator can conceivably be in a 100 per cent. monopoly position in any one area. It is the strength which the London Transport Executive gets from such a monopoly that we think unfair in its competition with other people. I feel sure that millions of citizens of London, who are deeply concerned about transport proposals, would rather that all the efforts and all the wisdom of the London Transport Authority were turned to improving transport facilities in London itself, rather than to extending those facilities in fields of this kind.

Mr. Callaghan: If the Minister is so concerned with the strength which a monopoly position gives, may I ask whether he will propose similar restrictions on the British Electric Traction Company which, as he knows, is one of the biggest monopolies in the country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am prepared to come to that when we discuss the Clauses which we are waiting to discuss. And I will also deal with the very large holding of the Transport Commission in a large number of crucial companies like the B.E.T.—[Interruption.]—I am trying to answer the question put by the hon. Gentleman. There is no conceivable comparison between a private company which has no rail interests, or tube activities or anything of that kind, with the London Transport Executive, which has 100 per cent. monopoly in all form of transport in the whole London area.

Mr. D. Jones: The more the Minister seeks to deal with transport problems the more he reveals his complete ignorance of the operations of transport. He speaks of the London Transport Executive as a monopoly. What he does not appreciate is that so far as operating contract carriages is concerned, neither their tubes nor their service buses can be used. He must realise that these contract carriages are in the main—and particularly now, since the advent of the five-day week— used at week-ends. And to be able to use the vehicles for contract work, when they are not required for service work, seems to me to be making a much better use of

the equipment provided than by using it in the way he seeks to do.
If there was sufficient time I could describe some of the difficulties which local authorities experience because of the prohibition imposed by a previous Conservative Act against taking part in contract carriage work.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Provincial bus companies controlled by the Commission have no such limitation because, in their cases, they do not operate from a full monopoly position in their own areas.

Mr. Jones: But, surely, the Minister appreciates that there is a vast difference. This equipment is used for five days a week to convey people to and from work; but the Minister said that it cannot be used on Saturday and Sunday on contract carriage work to take the same people in groups into the country. I have never heard of anything more stupid.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: We are talking about carriages and equipment. Will the Minister consider this matter from the point of view of the people of London? Does he intend to deny the people of London the right to go just outside into the country? Will he give careful consideration to this matter before the Report stage? The position appears to be scandalous.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have been at pains, during the discussion on the previous Clause, to make it clear that in our view the people most concerned are the public users of transport in the areas affected. I think that it is fair to say that we wasted a good deal of time discussing that priority. It is our view that there will be no diminution whatever— probably the reverse—in the facilities available because of this quite proper limitation.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I wish to ask one question. Will the Minister, either now or on Report stage, provide figures showing the extent to which this discrimination against the London Transport Executive will increase their overhead charges and, in that way, contribute to the continued rise in fares with which the present Government are so closely associated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly inquire of the London Transport Executive


what in their estimate is the likely consequence on their finances. At the same time, I must point out that one of the purposes of this Bill is to break monopoly and to restore competition. We are concerned about the interests of the travelling public. There will be innumerable opportunities for private operators to satisfy the needs of the people over the wide area where these facilities will be required.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 24, line 1, to leave out subsection (5).
I must say that the more we see of the proceedings on this Bill the more shameful and preposterous this Guillotine procedure appears to be. We on the Opposition Front Bench have had to wrestle with our hon. Friends on the back benches who naturally want to speak on these matters. With great regret we have had to ask them not to speak. We must do that because we have to ration ourselves. Once the Guillotine is on, we have almost got to guillotine ourselves voluntarily so that the various aspects of this Bill may be considered by the Committee.
This is a vital Clause. It deals with the relationship between the Commission and road passenger transport. It is a long Clause which raises vital issues of principle. We started our discussion on it at 7·30 and we have had 1½ hours in which to debate these vital matters. We have another 1½ hours left in which to debate the rest of the Clause. I hope that the Minister is feeling a sense of shame that the Guillotine—[H0N. MEMBERS: "No."] There is no harm in hoping. It is a good Christian virtue to hope for virtue in other people, and even to hope for it in oneself.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is also feeling a sense of shame in that it was on the Socialist Bill in 1947 that a Guillotine was first introduced on a transport Measure.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I do not think that this is in order. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was moving an Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: In those circumstances, we will call it a day—I wish it was.
There are two Amendments, if I may refer to both of them now, which, between them, propose to omit subsections (5) and (6). Perhaps it would be useful, in the first instance, if I were to indicate what these subsections mean. If I am right in my understanding of them—and, no doubt, I can be put right if I am wrong—it is, first of all, provided absolutely, without any question of reserve powers for the Minister at all, that the Commission shall not have the power to acquire any undertaking, or part of any undertaking, the business of which wholly or mainly consists of the provision of road passenger transport services; that is to say, the Commission can, in no circumstances, acquire any passenger transport undertaking, or any part of any such undertaking.
Incidentally, I call attention to the fact that this is denying to the British Transport Commission, which, under the Bill, will be responsible, so far as one can tell, for the operation of the railways, or for supervision over the railway groups. It denies to the British Transport Commission the very powers which Parliament gave to the four private railway companies some years ago, and it really will not do for the Minister to say that the Government are not actuated by a principle of unfair discrimination against a public authority.
In this case, clearly, they are. The power was given to the private railway companies in the 1930s to own and operate road passenger services, and, indeed, road haulage and even air transport, and, to some extent, they did all of these things. Far from Parliament discriminating against these vast statutory companies that they should not do these things, Parliament deliberately conferred that power upon them, and it was not a Socialist Parliament that did it. It was a Parliament with a Conservative majority in it, or in which Conservatives were the leading party. That is the first provision—that the Commission cannot buy any passenger transport undertaking or any part of a passenger transport undertaking, in any circumstances.
Secondly, the Commission is prohibited, unless the Minister consents, from acquiring any securities if the acquisition of those securities would put them in the position, directly or indirectly, of controlling a passenger transport undertaking.


This, again, is denying to the Commission what the railway companies were enabled to do.
If we take—I think I am right— the Southdown Motor Services, I believe that the Southern Railway acquired shares in that undertaking which have now passed to the British Transport Commission. They were able freely to do it, either with a majority or a minority holding. In this case, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) tells me that it was 32 per cent., and that was freely done—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I put the right hon. Gentleman right? I am advised that it is the Southdown Motor Services, which have taken about 244,000, and the B.T.C. 244,000. As is so often the case when sharp remarks are make about the B.E.T., hon. Members fail to say that, in the companies they are criticising, B.T.C. have an equal holding.

Mr. Morrison: Anyway, the point is not really material; it is a point of detail. My hon. Friend points out to me that page 42 of the Financial and Statistical Accounts for 1951 bears out what I said.
However, on the point of principle, it really does not matter whether it is 32 per cent., 50 per cent., or whatever it may be. But the fact is that the railway companies were in the position to acquire securities by payment to somebody or in the open market. In some cases they acquired sufficient securities to get a majority holding. At any rate, as far as I recall, there was no legal bar to their doing so.
So we get to this second provision whereby the Transport Commission is prohibited from acquiring securities in an undertaking if by so doing it would directly or indirectly give them control. So these are two negative provisions, the first one absolute, the second one conditional, on the Minister waiving the provisions of paragraph (b). Also, presumably, they could acquire securities without the Minister's permission—he will correct me if I am wrong—providing that it did not give them direct or indirect control of the undertaking. That might be useful, or it might not.
Subsection (6) provides:
Where—

(a) the Commission directly or indirectly control a body corporate which is carrying

on or is about to carry on an undertaking the activities whereof consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services; and
(b) as a result of disposing of any securities the Commission would no longer control that body corporate, whether directly or indirectly, then, without prejudice to any other power … the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, direct the Commission to dispose of those securities at such time and in such manner as may be specified. …"

This is a devastating power. What apparently has happened is that the British Transport Commission have inherited securities or controlling powers in certain passenger undertakings, or have, apparently, bought them by agreement. That has been done in the ordinary way of business. It is the kind of thing that the railway companies had the power to do under an Act of Parliament granted to them by a Conservative Government. Now the Minister is going to take powers whereby he, with the consent of the Treasury, can say to them, "You have got to get rid of these undertakings or securities; you have got to dispose of them."
It may well be that they have acquired those securities or undertakings on pretty heavy terms, and some of the terms were pretty heavy, because some of the omnibus companies which were operating under private enterprise, and sometimes under semi-monopolistic conditions, had acquired such profits or good will one way or the other that the amount of compensation paid for good will was considerable. That was so in the case of Tillings, and in the case of other acquisitions of the British Transport Commission.
Under the provisions of this subsection no direction is given as to the basis upon which the sale shall take place. We had this yesterday in respect to road haulage. There is no direction that they shall endeavour, or shall, in fact, get the same amount for the undertaking as they themselves paid for it. There is none of the sticky argument, as obtains when we propose in Bills for public ownership, that the compensation to the private owners shall be the highest that the Conservative Party can persuade us to give. There is no guarantee whatever, no stipulation, and nothing to prevent the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, letting these things go at scrap prices or at inadequate prices.

Mr. G. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Treasury would consent to assets being disposed of at scrap prices?

Mr. Morrison: I think, in the light of the nature of this Bill and of the discussions we have had, that a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Tory Minister of Transport are capable of doing that very thing. Indeed, there is nothing in this Clause which stipulates that there should be a fair valuation or a fair price. There is no arbitration tribunal set up in case of dispute. They just must let them go, and the Minister can direct that they must dispose of or sell off these things.
The British Transport Commission are in a big way of business in these things. They now own about 14,000 buses and coaches, they employ on these services round about 60,000 workpeople and the capital on the books in this respect is round about £50 million. Now powers are being taken whereby these things may have to be sold. It means, for example, that a direction can be given that Scottish Motor Services should be sold back to private ownership, presumably without stipulations about the conditions on which they should be sold. And we have been told from this side of the House that in Scotland there is a very highly integrated transport system, a system which is not perfect but is well developed.
Presumably it can be a direction also that Tillings, which took a bit of getting hold of, must be sold back to private enterprise. It is not only the case that the railway companies had powers of acquisition and powers to buy and exercised them. There has been all this talk of the evils of great undertakings, and I know that there can be evils in big undertakings, but this talk did not obtain when Tillings were building up a vast network of passenger road transport, when B.E.T. were building up a vast network or when, in Scotland and Wales and in London, vast undertakings of passenger road services were being built up by private enterprise.
If the principle of the Government is that road passenger services should be small local undertakings and that there should not be undertakings on a large scale, why is it that the Government are aiming all their shot and shell against

the public authority and, as far as I can see, no shot and shell whatever against the big private transport undertakings? What will happen under this Bill? This is a different proposition from the road haulage undertakings. Even this Government who try to pose as being the friends of the small man in road commercial haulage—and it probably will not work out that way— included in this Bill a provision that there should be preference in selling small units of commercial road haulage transport undertakings.
But there is no intention in this Clause that odd buses should be sold off to odd buyers. Why not? If the principles of the Conservative Party are in favour of the small man, why not let the real pirates come in and have a go at it? Why not the man with one bus? After all there is nothing strange about it. He did exist in London.

Sir William Darling: One bus per person.

Mr. Morrison: I would not go so far as to say that, because one would have congestion. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) is always very ready to oblige with an irrelevant joke and we enjoy it. There is no indication that these buses will be sold in small units. Therefore, presumably, the idea is that they will be disposed of in large units, and the probability is that they will have to be disposed of in large units. They will either be disposed of to large-scale private capitalist investors who will float companies to run these undertakings on a large scale, or they will be sold to existing private enterprise omnibus undertakers and thereby increase the monopolistic position as regards private ownership. This is how it is bound to work out. This seems to me to be the scheme of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
This is not a provision whereby the little man is going to be built up. This is a scheme whereby the big man, the big limited liability company, and the big monopoly radiating over a vast area are going to be built up. There will be no worry about a 10-mile radius then. The Minister has a hopeless, shocking prejudice against anything that is conducted under public auspices—I suppose except the Department which provides him with his salary. We can understand that he


has a little bias the other way in that respect, and we do not blame him at all. But he has a shocking bias against any public authority owning anything. The Bill is loaded with prejudice against public authorities, and I say that it is loaded with prejudice in favour of private enterprise and, indeed, monopolistic conditions.
The inevitable net result of this Clause in operation is going to be that if the Minister exercises his powers—and much depends upon that, of course— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the Minister is in a dilemma and, desiring to give us some comfort, says that he is not going to exercise powers which I think are harmful, and if at the same time he can carry his hon. Friends with him, he will be a very happy Minister, and good luck to him. His dilemma is that if he pleases hon. Members opposite he upsets us, and if he pleases us he upsets his hon. Friends.
All the powers exist in this Clause for smashing up the economic and financial stability of the British Transport Commission in respect of road passenger transport services, for requiring them to get rid of public property on disadvantageous terms, not for the purpose of stimulating free competition on the part of the undertakers of limited size but, as I see it, with the inevitable result that they will increase the area, the coverage and the operations of large-scale private monopolies in respect of passenger transport. Then some day somebody has got to buy them back again. I can only say that when that day comes, if people think we are going to pay twice they have made a mistake.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: You will seize them next time? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying on behalf of the Labour Party, that next time they will just seize them?

Mr. Morrison: If the noble Lord does not mind, I always prefer my own language to his, and I propose to use my own language on this occasion. I know he wants to be helpful and make my speech for me, but with respect I will do without his help.
What are the Government doing under this Bill? They are seizing public property in a way, and giving powers to

the Minister to get rid of it in any circumstances and at any price, even though it may be injuring the public undertaking, and at the same time building up a private monopoly in road passenger transport. We think it is very bad, and we think it is a scandal that this has got to be debated in a period of an hour and a half. After all, this Clause is absolutely contrary to evolution, to history, to what has now become tradition.
The Conservative Party in this respect are acting against their own principles. They claim to be the party with a respect for tradition and for precedent. They preach that they are the party of evolution—as long as there is not much evolution—rather than revolution. They believe in going steady. But here they are interfering with evolution, interfering with tradition and interfering with the existing practice which has been conducted and carried through, not by Socialists but by private capitalists—

Mr. G. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about evolution. Earlier on he referred to railways. Is he not aware that the Great Western Railway was a pioneer of bus services and that they subsequently sold their interest and took a minority interest?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman gives me my point. The Great Western Railway was a pioneer of bus services, but if the philosophy behind this Clause is right they should never have had a bus at all, because the doctrine of this Bill is that even though something is permitted to remain it is somehow wrong. There is something wrong if the British Transport Commission—which, under this Bill, will be mainly a railway concern—is involved in road passenger or road haulage services.

Mr. Wilson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," but he is very proud of the fact that the Great Western Railway was the first railway to start a bus service.
There is another point of some importance. One of the things that has been happening and must happen in railways is that where there is a branch line which is generally agreed to be uneconomic and which cannot survive economically, and when the public interest can equally well


be served by a bus or coach service, it is clearly desirable that the change should take place. But how should it take place? If the railway is owned by an undertaking which is more or less exclusively a railway concern and cannot freely enter into the omnibus business the tendency will be for the railway to hang on to its branch line even though it is in the general interest that the branch line should be closed down.
This is where we come to the plea of the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) that this is a question of transport and not of railways or roads. Surely the best way to solve that problem, which is part of the process of co-ordination and of effecting proper economies in transport administration, is that the railway undertaking which is faced with an utterly uneconomic branch line—which happens from time to time, and in which case the railway has not a proper system of transport for that particular mileage—should be in a position to close down the railway and themselves substitute road passenger transport.
That is surely the sensible thing to do, as a matter of good business management. I do not say that the Clause will necessarily make it impossible in every case, but in so far as the right hon. Gentleman is knocking the Commission out of its business he is making it increasingly difficult for that sort of thing freely to be done. Moreover, we need a co-ordinated service between the road passenger and the railway undertakings. We need them to fit in to help each other. One can say what one likes, but it is going to be more difficult if they are under separate ownerships than if they are under the same ownership.
In connection with the London Passenger Transport Measure—I have mentioned it before, but it will bear mentioning again—there was a suggestion for a fly-over or fly-under junction at Aldgate. One line belonged to the District Railway, under Lord Ashfield, and the other to the Metropolitan, under Lord Aberconway. For years and years these gentlemen had been arguing about the construction of a fly-over or fly-under junction which would have enabled the traffic to flow freely, whereas they were getting in each other's way and slowing down the traffic. This argument went

on for years and years, when everyone knew that such a junction was obviously the sensible thing to construct. What was the trouble? The trouble was there were two ownerships and the gentlemen could not agree. I know which one was the more difficult of the two. But that may be bias.
It was not until the London Passenger Transport Board came into existence that something happened. This illustrates that if there is to be a sensible handling of the physical assets of transport, the best way to get a sensible, free, imaginative handling is on the basis of some form of common ownership between the competing forms of transport. I am not against them competing with one another.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): An absolute monopoly.

Mr. Morrison: The Joint Under-Secretary has, no doubt, been sitting there thinking great thoughts. After all, there are so many Ministers at the Scottish Office that they must have a lot of time for sitting around and thinking. He tries to put the words "absolute monopoly" into my mouth. As a matter of fact, the whole tendency of private enterprise in transport has been towards private monopoly, and in whole areas of the country there has been private monopoly or something to that effect.
I give that as an illustration. I do not mind competition and emulation between forms of transport, but co-ordination is needed and that means physical action, which is easier done if there is common ownership between various services, after which we get to the point whether the ownership should be public or private. The whole history of transport has been the history of evolutions and amalgamations. When I was a boy I remember Ball's bus, called the "City Paragon," I think, running from Brixton Hill to the Bank, and the driver was on top with a whip. He was a Conservative. A long time ago many bus drivers were Conservatives. They are nearly all Socialists now. That, of course, shows that the modern bus driver, with his alertness and movement about to dodge the trouble, has a more lively political temperament than the old horse bus driver, all of which illustrates the truth of Marxist materialistic conception that men's minds are influenced by the way they get their living.
There were amalgamations, and then the London General Omnibus Company came along and a whole series of amalgamations emerged. Exactly the same thing happened in the provinces and municipalities entered the business. Therefore, the whole story of transport is not in the direction of this Bill; it is away from it. One should add that there is this reservation, that the story of private enterprise in transport has been towards amalgamation and towards something approaching monopoly as far as they can get it. The Bill is not discouraging that, but encouraging it at the expense of public enterprise.
For these reasons, we think these two subsections ought to go out. We believe that every consideration of the Government's point of view shows that they are being shockingly biased against public authority. We think the Government are damaging a great public concern, that the financial consequences will be of serious injury to the public, and, therefore, they will be injuring the travelling public. We believe that these provisions are absolutely wrong and contrary to the public interest, and we trust that the Committee will wipe them out.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. D. Jones: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in moving the deletion of this subsection. Hon. Members opposite say that they are seeking to destroy a monopoly, but so far as I can see monopoly is only a bad thing in the mind of the Minister when it is publicly owned. So long as the monopoly is privately owned the Minister is quite content to let it go on. Indeed, I suspect that some of his Friends at Stratton House are waiting for the Bill to become law in order that they might pounce upon some of the securities that the Bill gives him power to put on the market.
In an earlier discussion on an Amendment to the Clause, the Minister, and some of his hon. Friends sitting behind him, said that the opposition in the country to the area schemes was engineered in the main by ordinary members of the public. I hold in my hand a circular headed "Northern General Transport Company," and dated December, 1948. It is signed by Mr. G. W. Hayter, who is either the director or

general manager of five omnibus companies operating in the North-East. A copy of the letter was sent to every member of every local authority in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in Durham and in Northumberland, inviting them to organise themselves to give the utmost opposition to any attempt on the part of the Transport Commission to establish an area scheme in the North-East. I shall endeavour to show in a moment the ramifications of the British Electric Traction Company in all parts of the country.
The Minister, when he spoke in the House in July, sought to create an impression that the opposition to area schemes in the North-East had come from trade unions, and it took until 10th November, and a Question by me in the House, for him to repudiate "trade unions" and to say that he made a mistake and should have said "trade unionists." Why did the Minister have to wait from 22nd July until he was questioned on 10th November? I have no doubt that he had many members of his staff, for many hours of their valuable time, searching the records not only of Berkeley Square House, but I suspect, of 55, Broadway as well, to find whether any trade unions had made objections.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The fact is that no one was as bright as the hon. Member to point out to me that I had made a slip of speech. I took the opportunity to point to Socialist-controlled councils who were wholly opposed to the scheme.

Mr. Jones: We shall come to the Socialist-controlled councils in a moment or two. The Minister is not trying to tell me that neither he nor those in control of his affairs at Berkeley Square House read the speech of 22nd July, and did not draw his attention to this matter. The fact is that the Minister would have been content to let the opinion get abroad that the trade unions were not in favour of areas schemes if he had not been challenged in the House by myself.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he could produce evidence from the trade unionists on the West Hartlepool Council. I challenge him to produce a single document to that effect. Of course, there are still the Driver Marsdens and Guard Birches in this country. If the Home Secretary were here, he would remember this conversation with Guard Birch some


years ago. I challenge the Minister to produce a single document to show that a trade unionist member of West Hartlepool Council objected to the area scheme.
The right hon. Member went on to create the impression that the Labour-controlled councils of Gateshead, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and South Shields objected to the principle of the area scheme. I challenge him to produce evidence in that direction, too. I admit right away—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I gave an answer on the 10th November. I am not quite sure whether I should be in order in reading it out, but I suppose that I should be if the whole of the last five minutes of the debate has been in order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am a little puzzled to know where this argument is leading.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was particularly careful to distinguish those Socialist councils which opposed the scheme and those which opposed the scheme as drafted, and the hon. Gentleman, if I may use his own words, has waited a month to challenge my answer.

Mr. Jones: I have not had an opportunity.

The Deputy-Chairman: Whether the hon. Member has had an opportunity or not, does not seem to me to be relevant to this Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Jones: I would have challenged it had the opportunity presented itself. Let me go further and say this to the right hon. Gentleman. If the provisions of subsections 5 and 6 of the Bill become operative, what, in fact, will happen is this: The North-Eastern area—the area bounded by the Tees on one side and the Scottish border on the other—in which there are at present some eight or nine bus companies may possibly be controlled by the British Electric Traction Company.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was making his point about the British Electric Traction Company, the Minister got up to challenge his statement. I have in my hand a little booklet called "The Little Red Book," issued by "Passenger Transport"—by no stretch

of imagination Socialist in outlook. On page 166, it gives the composition of the British Electric Traction Company, and it says this:
The B.E.T. has substantial, and in many cases controlling interests in passenger road transport and other companies. The subsidiary and associated omnibus companies own and operate over 11,000 public service vehicles in England and Wales, and include the following undertakings, in some of which the British Transport Commission is also financially interested.
In the intervening pages, they indicate by an asterisk exactly which companies are controlled, and, for the benefit of getting this on the records, I propose to read out these companies with the buses they control, so that the Committee may see exactly the ramifications of the British Electric Traction Company.
They are as follow: Aldershot and District Company, 347 buses; Midland Red, 1803; Black and White, Cheltenham, 81; Chatham and District, 53; County Motors, Huddersfield, 25; Devon General, 310; East Kent Road Car Company, 511; East Midland, Chesterfield, 203; East Yorks, Hull, 282; Gateshead and District, 72; Hastings Tramways, 49; Hebble Motors, Halifax, 84; James and Sons, Ammanford, 38; Maidstone and District, 816; Mexborough and Swinton Traction Company, 45; Northern General, Newcastle, 653; Oxford Motors, 247; Potteries Traction, Stoke, 500; Rhondda Transport, Porth, 211; Ribble, Preston, 1,155; Sheffield Tours, 95; South Downs, Brighton, 919; Llanelly Traction, 39; South West Transport, Swansea, 352; Standerwick, Blackpool, 117; Stratford Motors, 30; Sunderland Omnibus Company, 111; Trent Valley, Utoxeter, 431; Tynemouth and District, 67; Tyneside Tramways, 21; Wakefields, South Shields, 19; Western Welsh, Cardiff, 610; Yorkshire Traction, 375; and Yorkshire Woollen District, 308.

Mr. G. Wilson: Will the hon. Member say what proportion of the shares in those companies is owned by the Transport Commission?

Mr. Jones: There is not a single one of those companies in which the Commission own a majority shareholding. It is true that they own minority shares in some of them, but they do not control a single company. They are controlled by the British Electric Traction Company.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who will control them when the Bill is passed? That is the question.

Mr. Jones: The purpose of these Clauses in the Bill, as I see it, is to give the Minister authority to force the Transport Commission to sell the majority holding which they have in other bus companies as and when the right hon. Gentleman decides. I suspect very much that Stratton House, Piccadilly, which is the headquarters of the B.E.T., will tell him when to put those securities on the market.
What will be the result? In the North-East, nine companies at present operate buses. Seven of them, owning 943 buses, are in the control of the British Electric Traction Company, with Mr. W. T. James as the managing director of each of the seven companies and with Mr. G. W. Hayter, who was so concerned about the North-Eastern scheme, as either the general manager or a director of each of these seven companies. Is there any wonder that he sent a circular to every local authority asking them to use their endeavours against the North-Eastern scheme? Is it any wonder that the Tory "stooges" on local authorities, including the West Hartlepool Town Council, have been playing Mr. Hayter's game?
The Transport Commission own, in the same area, 55 buses run under the name of Darlington Triumph, 71 buses run under the Durham and District and 1,035 run under the United Omnibus Services, of Darlington. What will happen if the Minister uses his power under these Clauses of the Bill to instruct the Commission to sell their majority shareholding in these three bus companies when Stratton House asks him to do so? [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what they will do."] It will mean that every single bus operating in the North-East will be in the control of the British Electric Traction Company.
Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman, Some of my friends in the municipal passenger transport service tell me that Stratton House is already making preparations for when the Bill passes into law. Now we understand why the Minister wants a Guillotine. [Laughter.] I mean a Guillotine for the Bill. It might have been better for the country had the Guillotine fallen somewhere else.
What is likely to happen in South Wales? Eight companies are operating, six of them owned by the British Electric Traction Company and two by the Transport Commission. The Minister can check them on the list that he has in front of him. They are: Black and White, of Cheltenham; James, Ammanford; Rhondda Transport; Llanelly Traction; South Wales Transport, and Western Welsh, Cardiff. Between them, they control 1·331 buses.
There are two other companies operating in South Wales, Red and White of Chepstow and United Welsh of Chepstow, owning, between them, 741 buses. If this Bill becomes law and the British Electric Traction Company get their hands on the majority shareholdings in Red and White and United Welsh, there will be one single privately-owned monopoly operating every bus between the Severn on one side and Brecon Beacon on the other, the Bristol Channel on the third and Cardigan Bay on the fourth.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: What is the Minister for Welsh Affairs going to do about it?

Mr. Jones: I have already asked the Minister for Welsh Affairs what he will do about it.
No wonder the Minister of Transport wants this power and wants to deprive the publicly-owned partial monopoly of the Transport Commission of their holdings. He claims he dislikes monopoly, yet he does not propose to do anything at all about British Electric Traction Company. Is it because the British Electric Traction Company subscribed to the Woolton Fund, I wonder?
I hope that these two subsections will be defeated, because they would give the privately-owned monopoly, the British Electric Traction Company, an opportunity of getting a stranglehold on at least two important industrial areas of this country where millions of people will be at the mercy of a privately-owned bus undertaking.

Mr. J. Grimond: When the possibility arose of the reintroduction of some competition into transport, some of us thought that the simplest way of doing it would be to allow the Commission to continue much as at present but simply to allow private operators to run against them. For various reasons,


that view was not taken and one reason, presumably, was the extremely strong position of the Commission. But there is clearly a danger which has been mentioned this evening, of at least a local monopoly even apart from the Commission.
I would ask the Minister to deal with one or two points arising from the Amendment. I understand from Clause 24 and the 1947 Act that the Commission are still empowered to run passenger transport themselves and, despite subsection (6), there is no power vested in the Minister to order the Commission to divest themselves of such transport but only of securities held in private bus companies. The case in which I am particularly interested is that where a branch line has been closed down or a series of wayside railway stations have been closed down and there is one bus company which, if it is not a monopoly, will become a monopoly when the line or the stations are closed.
Can the Minister assure us that when the results of the findings of the Committee inquiring into bus companies are known steps will be taken to see that bus companies are not put into a monopoly position? We have a case where Northern Roadways, a bus company, is prevented from coming into operation on certain routes because of the railways and other monopolists. I hope that the danger of a privately-owned monopoly growing up in the same way will be guarded against.
Secondly, can the Minister assure us that despite subsections (5) and (6) there is nothing to prevent the Commission running a bus service in an area where stations or a branch line have been closed down and there is no private operator? I appreciate that the main function of the Commission will be to run railways, and no doubt that is part of the reason for these subsections, but can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that they will have the necessary power to intervene where there are no other services?
I do not quite understand why the Commission should not be allowed to acquire any undertaking under subsection (5, a) on the same terms as they are given powers under (5, b) to acquire an interest in an undertaking—that is to say, with the consent of the

Minister. Why should they not acquire such an undertaking if the Minister is agreeable to such action? I do not see why the distinction is drawn between the two sub-paragraphs.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the whole Committee enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). I hope it does not sound patronising if I say that he is at his best in describing old days in London—London as it used to be. It seems to some of us that he then sometimes has a surer touch than when he is discussing new days and new problems in London. I must say in passing—although it would be out of order if I said more than a few words—that I wish he had shown the same respect for the evolutionary process which produced large numbers of very efficient small private hauliers when he violently interfered with that evolution by compulsory liquidation of those concerns five years ago.
Tonight he has directed his fire to two Amendments, to omit subsections (5) and (6). Perhaps I may put these subsections into perspective and reassure those in the Committee who are swayed by debate as to the reasons why they have been included. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, the purpose of the subsections is to prevent the Commission from acquiring bus undertakings and, without the Minister's consent, from acquiring share control. It seems to us that the Commission already have an adequate interest in road passenger services. I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the Minister's power and the possibility of reproducing the same provision in the other subsection, and I will let him have an answer on Report stage.
But it seems to us that there has been a very substantial increase which is not to the public advantage. I shall not weary the Committee with figures, but in 1948, which is the first full year of the Commission's activity, in this field of road passenger service they acquired the remaining half interest in the Tilling group which was still privately owned and also bought out the minority interest in some Tilling subsidiaries.
At the end of the year their interest in road passenger services amounted to £31 million. As the right hon. Gentleman


said, it is now £50 million. They have become very substantial indeed as operators and owners, although they have wisely left the running of their concerns to private enterprise, which is one of the reasons, I think, why they have yielded adequate returns to the Commission. In Scotland, of course, the proportion is even higher. The total buses licensed in Scotland is some 8,000. Of these, B.T.C. control 4,381, local authorities control about 1,200 and private operators control the remainder.
The right hon. Gentleman talked as though what we were doing in the Clause was to take away the rather modest passenger interest which the old railway companies enjoyed. Of course, it is nothing of the sort. In our view, the right of acquisition of other undertakings or, without the Minister's consent, of shares which will give share control, should not be possible in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman then turned to that subsection which gives the Minister of the day power to compel the Commission to divest themselves of that part of their shareholding which gives them control. As he quite rightly says, this power is not mandatory but is permissive; the Minister is not obliged to exercise it. But it would be quite unrealistic to suggest that we should go to the trouble and possible, indeed certain, argument of introducing a Clause if the possibility of having used it had not entered our heads. Now the possibility, as I have said, must await the report of the Thesiger Committee.
On 28th October I announced in the House the names of the members of that Committee. All of them were distinguished people and many have considerable knowledge of passenger activities. I will not recapitulate them or cite the various organisations with which they have been associated from time to time. The Government, and I think all hon. Members, will be grateful to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Thesiger, and other members of the Commitee for the time they are devoting to this most important inquiry.
I was very anxious that there should be such an inquiry for the following reasons. The 1930 Act, broadly speaking, has worked very well, and it has introduced ordered competition into the transport ser-

vices in this country. But in recent years there have been significant changes which demand a review of the Act. One of the changes is that aspect of the activities of the Commission to which attention is being drawn tonight—how far the situation is altered by this very substantial acquisition in the field of passenger service by the British Transport Commission, with its complete railway monopoly, not only in Scotland but elsewhere.
As the Committee knows, I, like my predecessor, have the not very easy, and often unpleasant, task of acting in a quasi-judicial capacity on appeals under the 1930 Act. Not knowing much about the background of this business, I was beginning to wonder how far the interpretation of that Act was being altered by the existence of the large holding in passenger transport activities by the Commission, in Scotland or elsewhere. That is one of the aspects of the question to which the Thesiger Committee will be directing their attention.
Another aspect and a very important one which caused me concern, and also my predecessor who had a great many difficult decisions to make, is the disparity of fares between the road and rail passenger services, especially in regard to week-end leave for the personnel of R.A.F. camps. It was quite rightly held that if there was an alternative service which might save 8s. a week, that is a sum which would eat into the pay of an R.A.F. recruit. That is another aspect of the matter which I have asked the Committee to consider.
The third aspect is the decision of the High Court with regard to contract carriages about which I am not technically qualified to illumine the House. I must wait until the Thesiger Committee reports before I make any further statement about my intentions regarding the permissive powers I am taking in this Bill. But I can straight away disabuse the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South of any fear that we shall give away these great assets. There is no question whatever of their being given away. The power which this gives me is the authority to tell the Commission to divest themselves, not of their holdings in these companies, but of that proportion of the share capital which gives them actual control, and that is purely a permissive power.


The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), always try to paint a picture in which we are quite prepared, frivolously prepared, to build up a private monopoly, but in which we are deeply alarmed at the existence of a public monopoly. The story is not quite so simple or so easy as that. It is a very different situation when one is dealing with a company which is, quite rightly, subject to a host of other competitive influences, railways and the like, and when one is dealing with the activities of the Commission which have full monopoly powers on the railway.
One day the public might find that there is only one provider of transport all over Great Britain, and they would take very hardly indeed the attitude of a Government which had allowed such a situation to develop. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we shall watch very carefully to see that nothing in these proposals prejudices the running of alternative passenger facilities if small branch lines are closed.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also asked about the situation in regard to Northern Roadways. I am, of course, prevented from commenting on that because I have no fewer than three appeals before me at the moment. There is an Edinburgh—Glasgow—London appeal against the granting of licences to Northern Roadways, Scotland, and there are appeals in connection with services between Glasgow and Birmingham and Glasgow and Bournemouth.
10.0 p.m.
As long as these quasi-judicial responsibilities rest with me I cannot very well comment upon them in this Committee. No doubt one of the issues to which the Thesiger Committee will apply itself will be the question of the ultimate responsibility for very difficult decisions of this kind.
Finally, I come to what was said by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools. I could, if need be, detain the Committee for a considerable time. Perhaps on the Report stage I can go through the remaining 200 companies that he did not list when he made his lightning summary of the situation. I tried to write down what he was saying as fast as I

could, but not being qualified in shorthand I found myself two or three companies behind. However, it appeared to me that in about 75 per cent. of all the companies he mentioned the Transport Commission have a holding equal to the holding of B.E.T.
I do not propose to enter into a battle about the accuracy of these figures. There will be other opportunities for that. But, to put the matter a little more in perspective, I should like to mention a few companies. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Aldershot and District Traction Company. In this Company B.E.T. hold £82,000 of the share capital and B.T.C. hold £82,000. Figures for the East Yorkshire Motor Services are B.E.T., £149,000; B.T.C., £149,000. Figures for the East Kent Road Car Company Ltd. are B.E.T., £159,000: B.T.C., £159,000.

Mr. Callaghan: Of what?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of share capital. The Hebble Motor Services Ltd. are the same. And then there is the company which always excites the interest and the ire of hon. Gentlemen opposite—the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company Ltd. whose share issue capital is £1,540,000. The B.T.C. has in ordinary shares £720,000. These figures do not suggest that the public monopoly has not got quite a substantial interest in the activities of B.E.T.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling me about Stratton House. One of the carrier pigeon services which is necessary in a debate of this kind was to enable me to know exactly who lived there. I did not know. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will take that as a sign that I am not unduly influenced by anybody. However, I know this to be a most reputable and efficient company. I am delighted to think that a great Corporation like B.T.C. has so many happy marriages with them.

Mr. D. Jones: Will the Minister accept it from me that Mr. J. S. Wills, the chairman of British Electric Traction Co., is also chairman of Midland Red, and that Mr. W. T. James, director of the British Electric Traction Co. is chairman of the Aldershot Company?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that the


Commission is prepared to trust its £720,000 holding in Midland Red to the chairman of that company.

Mr. Callaghan: In this battle of the books, I was hoping that the Minister might quote from the report which I saw passed to him when I challenged him on his previous figures when we were discussing the holding of the Transport Commission in some of these motor traction services, such as the Southdown Motor Services Ltd. Why has he relied upon the list which he has read out without referring to page 42 of the Financial and Statistical Accounts of the Transport Commission? There is a difference. What is it? Ought not the Minister, if he is giving us figures, to explain the difference? I will gladly give way if he will do so.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I quoted figures which are in this official list. To the best of my belief they are correct in every detail. I had them in a handy form so that I could relate them to the speech of whichever hon. Member raised the matter, but, if any one figure is inaccurate, and I have not had a chance to check them up with this document, which came to me quite recently, I will take the first public opportunity of correcting any mistake.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will deny that, as I have said, where the holdings are equal, they are in fact equal in the ordinary stock. The only case in which it is necessary to make a distinction between ordinary and preference shares was in the Midland Red case, and there I said that it was £720,000 out of a share capital of £1,544,000, but I believe that in that case there were £32,000 kept in stock which they did not hold. However, I will clear up the matter if I am wrong.

Mr. Callaghan: It is typical of the Minister that he will rely on every document except that issued by the British Transport Commission. I do not know why he should wish to turn to these figures when there are plenty of copies of the Commission's Report scattered about the Committee, or why, in that case, the Minister should have to use a specially type-written document.
I will make the guess that the difference between the figures included in this Report and the figures that the Minister

has quoted is that he is quoting the percentage of ordinary share capital and what is quoted here is, as is stated quite clearly, and as the Minister will see if he looks at page 42 of the Annual Report, the percentage of the issued share capital held by the Commission.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I repeat what I said—that, as far as I know, I quoted in most of the cases the ordinary capital, and where I saw, in this lightning calculation, that there was preference capital as well, I said so expressly in the case of the Midland Red.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the Minister, although I do not think he has added anything further this time. At least, we can be clear that, when the Minister challenged my right hon. Friend that his figures were wrong, my right hon. Friend was quoting the percentage of issued share capital held by the Commission, as shown in the Report of the British Transport Commission.
As far as I know, where the British Transport Commission hold even as much as 50 per cent. of the ordinary share capital, in fact, control is expressly left to the British Electric Traction Company. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not know why; I am stating the facts. In one way, it is left there through the appointment of the chairman and of the directors. It is a remarkable thing that, as we go down through the list of bus companies, which starts up in the North-East with Newcastle and finishes up in Devonshire, the chairmen and managing directors are nearly always the same.
It is either a gentleman called Mr. James or a gentleman called Mr. Wills, and they must be the most ubiquitous people to be holding the managing directorships of companies as far apart as Devonshire and Northumberland and Kent and Lancashire, but they do manage them, and, what is more remarkable, they manage also, through some obliqueness of thought, to cover the same interests, for the annual report and the chairman's speech issued by the East Kent Car Company, in the person of Mr. James, or, may be, Mr. Wills, is in exactly the same form and the same terms as the annual report and the chairman's speech issued by the managing director of the Ribble Company, whether it be Mr. James or Mr. Wills. All are administered from London, and for the Minister to hold


these people up as an example of competitive private enterprise is rather amusing to those of us who know the facts about the British Electric Traction Company.
Not only this, but laundries, and not only laundries, but cinemas, and not only cinemas, but also hotels, and so they run the whole gamut, under Mr. Wills and Mr. James, these two very remarkable men, who are on the spot, administering locally, with local control and initiative, the whole range of these wonderful enterprises. They are very efficient, but they are not really an example of small-scale private enterprise which the Minister is so fond of prating about.
However, I want to get on to other matters that concern us more immediately in this Clause. I would point out to the Minister—and he did not give the Committee any picture of this—that the evolution of bus undertakings over the last 30 years has been in the form of the creation of giant enterprises.
Before the war there were about 4,000 bus undertakings—there were probably more, but 4,000 would be a good minimum—two of which were giants under whose shadow all the rest survived. Those two giants were private enterprise companies, one, British Electric Traction, which I have been describing, and the other the Tillings Group.
It was the hope of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) when he inserted these Clauses into the 1947 Bill that those two very large-scale private enterprise units would voluntarily agree, in view of the terms of the 1947 Act, to be acquired in order that the process that had been going on of building up these units should be concluded and that they should be amalgamated into one public service.
Tillings were bought out. They came over and brought many thousands of vehicles with them. British Electric Traction, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools said, and as they were entitled to do, fought the Act the whole way through. They influenced local authorities, they conducted all the propaganda on this particular issue, and they appointed public relations officers in every area in order, I would say, to mislead the public about the reasons for this and what the consequences would be.

They indulged in very specious propaganda, and, let us face it, they defeated the purposes of the 1947 Act, and they can take considerable credit for defeating those purposes.
But let us be clear what has happened. While they have defeated the purposes of the 1947 Act, they themselves have been building up their own private empire. They have not stood still since 1947, and this is where the Minister consistently paints an inaccurate picture to put before the Committee. I do not know whether he does it deliberately or because his information on this issue is incomplete. In the latter part of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the substantial addition that had been made to the companies under the control of the British Transport Commission which he said was not in the public interest.
Why is it less in the public interest that the British Transport Commission should be able to acquire these additional units than that British Electric Traction should acquire them, because both have done so? Why does not the Minister, instead of painting this particular picture, tell us that both these two great enterprises—the only two which really matter in the bus field—the private enterprise British Electric Traction and the British Transport Commission, have been adding to their fleets?
If it is not in the public interest in the case of the B.T.C., then it is not in the public interest in the case of the B.E.T. Why is the Minister taking powers to break up the Commission's holdings when he is doing nothing about the holdings of B.E.T.? These are the fundamental points with which the Minister has not dealt, and this is what we have complained about in this Bill. It shows his bias against public in favour of private undertakings, irrespective of what his friends in private enterprise are doing. As the Minister responsible he is not holding the balance fairly between private and public enterprise.
I will quote the figures. In 1946–47, when the Transport Bill was being discussed, British Electric Traction and Tillings, the other big giants, owned between them 17,000 vehicles. Today, British Electric Traction and the British Transport Commission, who have taken


over Tillings, now control between them 26,000 vehicles. Between 1946–47 and the present time they have increased their joint number of vehicles by 9,000. That is what I would have expected. It does not fill me with awe or alarm.

Mr. G. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman particularise as to how many are the B.T.C.'s and how many are the other's?

Mr. Callaghan: I can almost but not quite, and I hope that the hon. Member will not hold me to an exact figure.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I will gladly give way to the noble Lord if he has the figures.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The B.T.C. figures for December are 14,000 and B.E.T.'s 11,500.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I had B.T.C.'s as 14,000 and B.E.T.'s as 11,000, so we are pretty near. There may well be some discrepancy, but these figures show that they are growing at something like the same rate and should be sufficient to fill the Minister with the sort of alarm which he ought to feel about B.E.T. If he is honest in his protestation that the British Transport Commission are building up a monopoly, why does he not deal with B.E.T. in the same way as be is dealing with B.T.C.? The right hon. Gentleman should not mislead us with this constant allegation that the British Transport Commission have a monopoly. He ought to know—and if he does not know he ought to be ashamed of himself—that the British Transport Commission have not a monopoly in this field.
The British Transport Commission, having organised these bus companies as bus companies, have to apply for a licence for every vehicle that runs on the route. I hear the Minister saying, "Hear, hear," and that means that he knows that it is open to any local operator, however big or however small, who can provide a service to go along to the licensing authority and say that he can provide a better or cheaper service than can the British Transport Commission's own companies, and that B.T.C. can be challenged and, if necessary, turned off that route. [An HON. MEMBER: "What a

hope."] I do not know who said, "What a hope." All that I can say is that it has happened.
The Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South and the Parliamentary Secretary and myself have had some experience of this business. We have seen what has happened. I have seen these challenges made, not only against the British Transport Commission but against British Electric Traction and the small man has won on occasion. I thought, when I was there, that the small man put up a successful fight and, as far as I could semi-judicially lean, I used to lean on his side if necessary in order to give the public a better service. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah!") What is wrong with that?
It seems to me extremely odd that the Conservative Party should claim that the British Transport Commission have a monopoly when in fact they can be challenged on every route. They will find that Ministers in Labour Governments and in Conservative Governments have permitted that challenge, as indeed they are bound to do under the law, and have accepted it and allowed new carriers to enter the service. What is wrong with this set-up? What is the Minister trying to do? What is so bad about this set-up?
It is really these fundamental considerations which the Minister has glossed over tonight that make us on this side of the Committee feel so indignant about the wreckage that may emerge from the Minister's proposals as contained in this Clause. According to the annual accounts of B.T.C. the fixed assets and goodwill amounts to £66 million. This body is getting as big as the road haulage undertaking and, let hon. Members believe me, the Minister's power for mischief in this Clause is just as great as it is in relation to the road haulage undertaking.
The profit that last year poured into the coffers of the British Transport Commission from these controlled bus companies was £3·8 million, and every year it has been between £3 million and £4 million. What is the Minister's objection to public enterprise making £4 million profit? [An HON. MEMBER: "His friends are not getting it."] I warn the Minister that in the compensation provision that seems to be in this Bill he may well be setting a new pattern for payment


of compensation when companies are bought and sold. If any of these companies are disposed of at less than the market value, that in itself will be a guide and an indication of what the Conservative Government's view is about the proprieties of compensation. That must be watched in the future when we come to re-nationalise, as we shall do, as many of these undertakings as are necessary in order to provide an integrated public service.
If the British Electric Traction Company eat up the Tilling undertaking, as they may well do, and as my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools feared, it will certainly make it easier to take over British Electric Traction later on. There will then be all the corpus and the skeleton of a national passenger service that will be much easier to acquire, and to that extent we shall be grateful to the Minister for having facilitated our task in that direction.
I regret very much that we have got a miserable hour and a half in which to debate an issue of such far-reaching importance as this. The Minister knows, if he understands this problem at all, that he is interfering with the whole process of the natural evolution of the bus undertakings of this country. He knows perfectly well that he is setting the clock back. I always understood that it was the Conservative philosophy that they should conserve what had been done and not break down what had been done. Where they are flying in defiance of their own philosophy and where a number of their own supporters are feeling very unhappy is that instead of conserving the best of what has been done by previous Governments, they are recklessly, wantonly and wilfully breaking it up irrespective of the public interest, for the sake of their private profit.

Mr. Sparks: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to the case made by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, there is no doubt that this part of Clause 16 can truly be regarded as an act of vandalism in its relation to the main transport system of British Railways. Everything the right hon. Gentleman said for denying the British Transport Commission or British Railways—it is the same thing under the new set-up—of the right to operate road passenger services could equally well be

said in regard to the Commission retaining any of their road haulage services.
In Clause 4 the right hon. Gentleman admits, so far as road haulage is concerned, that it is right and just that the Commission should be enabled to retain those railways owned road haulage organisations which they had in their possession prior to nationalisation or road haulage organisations in which they had a financial interest. He proposes, in Clause 4, to permit the Commission to retain six-fifths of their road haulage strength prior to nationalisation. The argument in favour of that principle is equally strong in regard to the road passenger services, and I cannot understand why he should treat road haulage in a far more friendly and just manner than he proposes to treat the road passenger services of the Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman must know that even prior to nationalisation the former railway companies had very substantial interests in quite a substantial proportion of the existing road passenger services. It is true that those road passenger undertakings continued under their previous auspices of a private enterprise organisation, but the railway companies had a substantial financial interest in those undertakings and, therefore, I should have thought, if the Minister and the Government were anxious to do the right thing by the country and by the Commission, they would be prepared to treat the road passenger services in precisely the manner that they treated the road haulage enterprises previously owned by the former railway companies.
The Minister must know that the former railway companies did not acquire an interest in road passenger services without a special, urgent reason, and that was to endeavour to integrate the services in certain special areas where there was difficulty with the main passenger services. Consequently, as a result of the integration of road passenger services with rail we had a co-ordinated service for long-distance travel by railway, finishing or commencing the journey by connections with road passenger organisations at certain important centres.
If the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to prune away from the Commission these integrated road passenger services, the traveller must ultimately suffer because there will not be


the incentives on the part of private enterprise to link up the local road passenger services with the railway trunk services. So we have this very glaring anomaly of the road haulage enterprise of the Commission being treated quite differently from the road passenger services.
Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said so far will convince anybody, and I am sure in his quiet moments it will not convince himself that he is treating the Commission and the public fairly and justly by taking away the road passenger services while, at the same time, permitting them to retain certain road haulage organisations. I would appeal to the Minister to think again about this matter because, on reflection, I am sure that he will realise that the ground upon which he stands now is very shaky indeed.
It is not sufficient to say he wants the powers in this Bill in anticipation of a report by the Thesiger Committee. The

Minister has not pledged himself to accept the findings of that Committee. If they find a way not suitable to him, he will retain the right to act in any way he thinks fit. Will he give an undertaking that the recommendations of the Committee will be accepted? Irrespective of the recommendations of the Committee he wants this power to disintegrate completely and disband and dismantle the very fine auxiliary passenger service which the Transport Commission have built up over the past four years.

Therefore, I hope that between now and the final stages of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman will very seriously consider—

It being half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded. pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 8, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 264.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Shepherd, William


Hurd, A. R.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Mellor, Sir John
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Molson, A. H. E.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Snadden, W. McN.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Soames, Capt. C.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spearman, A. C. M


Jennings, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Speir, R. M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stevens, G. P.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Storey, S.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lambton, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Oakshott, H. D.
Summers, G. S.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Leather, E. H. C
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Teeling, W.


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lindsay, Martin
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Linstead, H. N.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tilney, John


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turton, R. H.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Longden, Gilbert
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Low, A. R. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Wade, D. W.


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McCallum, Major D.
Raikes, H. V.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


MoCorquodale, Rt, Hon. M. S
Rayner, Brig. R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


McKibbin, A. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Robertson, Sir David
Watkinson, H. A.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robson-Brown. W.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wills, G.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Savorys, Prof. Sir Douglas
York. C.


Maude, Angus
Schofield, Lt,-Col. W. (Rochdale)



Maudling, R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr, Drewe and Mr. Studholme




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Adams, Richard
Brockway, A. F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Albu, A. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Deer, G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Delargy, H. J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Donnelly, D. L.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Burke, W. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Dugdale Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Callaghan, L. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Baird, J.
Carmichael, J.
Edelman, M.


Balfour, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bartley, P.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Beattie, J.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Clunie, J.
Ewart, R.


Bence, C. R.
Coldrick, W.
Fernyhough, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Collick, P. H.
Fienburgh, W.


Benson, G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Finch, H. J.


Beswick, F.
Cove, W. G.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Follick, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Foot, M. M.


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Forman, J. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blyton, W. R.
Daines, P.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Boardman, H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gibson, C. W.


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Glanville, James

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government of which notice had been given, to Clause 16, and the further Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that Clause.

Amendments made: In page 24, leave out lines 9 and 10, and insert:
(b) except with the consent of the Minister, the Commission shall not acquire or cause or permit any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by them to acquire any securities if the acquisition thereof.

In line 22, after first "of," insert:
the Commission or any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission.

In line 23, leave out "that," and insert "the first mentioned."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

In line 27, after "dispose," insert:
or, as the case may be, to cause the second mentioned body corporate to dispose."—[Mr. Braithwaite.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 262.

Division No. 39]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Carson, Hon. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Arbuthnot, John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Gammans, L. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Godber, J. B.


Baldwin, A. E.
Colegate, W. A.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Banks, Col. C.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gough, C. F. H.


Barber, Anthony
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gower, H. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baxter, A. B.
Cranborne, Viscount
Gridley, Sir Arnold



Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Grimond, J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harden, J. R. E.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Air Cdr. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Birch, Nigel
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E,)


Bishop, F. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Black, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hay, John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Donner, P. W.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Edward


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Higgs, J. M. C.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Braine, B. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Duthie, W. S.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hollis, M. C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Elliot, Rt. Han. W. E.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Erroll, F. J.
Holt, A. F.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fell, A.
Hope, Lord John


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Finlay, Graeme
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Bullard, D. G.
Fisher, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Horobin, I. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Burden, F. F. A.
Fort, R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Butcher, H. W.
Foster, John
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)




Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Shepherd, William


Hurd, A. R.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Mellor, Sir John
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Molson, A. H. E.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Snadden, W. McN.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Soames, Capt. C.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spearman, A. C. M


Jennings, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Speir, R. M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stevens, G. P.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Storey, S.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lambton, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Oakshott, H. D.
Summers, G. S.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Leather, E. H. C
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Teeling, W.


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lindsay, Martin
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Linstead, H. N.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tilney, John


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turton, R. H.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Longden, Gilbert
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Low, A. R. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Wade, D. W.


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McCallum, Major D.
Raikes, H. V.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


MoCorquodale, Rt, Hon. M. S
Rayner, Brig. R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


McKibbin, A. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Robertson, Sir David
Watkinson, H. A.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robson-Brown. W.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wills, G.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Savorys, Prof. Sir Douglas
York. C.


Maude, Angus
Schofield, Lt,-Col. W. (Rochdale)



Maudling, R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr, Drewe and Mr. Studholme




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Adams, Richard
Brockway, A. F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Albu, A. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Deer, G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Delargy, H. J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Donnelly, D. L.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Burke, W. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Dugdale Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Callaghan, L. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Baird, J.
Carmichael, J.
Edelman, M.


Balfour, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bartley, P.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Beattie, J.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Clunie, J.
Ewart, R.


Bence, C. R.
Coldrick, W.
Fernyhough, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Collick, P. H.
Fienburgh, W.


Benson, G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Finch, H. J.


Beswick, F.
Cove, W. G.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Follick, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Foot, M. M.


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Forman, J. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blyton, W. R.
Daines, P.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Boardman, H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gibson, C. W.


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Glanville, James




Gooch, E. G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, J.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Snow, J. W.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Manuel, A. C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Grey, C. F.
Mayhew, C. P.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mikardo, Ian
Steele, T.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Monslow, W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hamilton, W. W.
Morley, R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hannan, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Swingler, S. T.


Hardy, E. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Sylvester, G. 0.


Hargreaves, A.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hastings, S.
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hayman, F. H
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Nally, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hobson, C. R.
O'Brien, T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Holman, P.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.
Thornton, E. (Farnworth)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Orbach, M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Timmons, J.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Tomney, F.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Viant, S. P.


Janner, B.
Palmer, A. F. M.
Wallace, H. W.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pannell, Charles
Watkins, T. E.


Jager, George (Goole)
Pargiter, G. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paton, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pearson, A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Peart, T. F.
West, D. G.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Porter, G.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Proctor, W. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E. )


Kenyon, C.
Rankin, John
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reeves, J.
Wigg, George


King, Dr. H. M
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Kinley, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rhodes, H.
Willey, F. T.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Richards, R.
Williams, David (Neath)


Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lewis, Arthur
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Lindgren, G. S.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Logan, D. G.
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


MacColl, J. E.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Wyatt, W. L.


McGhee, H. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Yates, V. F.


McInnes, J.
Short, E. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shurmer, P. L. E.



McLeavy, F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Division No. 40.]
AYES
10.40 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fell, A.
Longden, Gilbert


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Low, A. R. W.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McAdden, S. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Fort, R.
McCallum, Major D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Foster, John
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McKibbin, A. J.


Banks, Col. C.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Barber, Anthony
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Barlow, Sir John
Gammans, L. D.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Baxter, A. B.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Gower, H. R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Grimond, J.
Maude, Angus


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maudling, R.


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Black, C. W.
Harden, J. R. E.
Mellor, Sir John


Boothby, R. J. G
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Braine, B. R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hay, John
Nicholls, Harmar


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heath, Edward
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nugent, G. R. H


Bullard, D. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nutting, Anthony


Bullock, Capt. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J
Oakshott, H. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holt, A. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Campbell, Sir David
Hope, Lord John
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Orr-Ewing, Ian L, (Weston-super-Mare)


Carson, Hon. E,
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Osborne, C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Horobin, I. M.
Partridge, E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peake, Rt. Hon. 0


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Cole, Norman
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Colegate, W. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col 0. E
Jennings, R.
Raikes, H. V.


Crouch, R. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rayner, Brig. R


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Redmayne, M


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Remnant, Hon. P.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Kaberry, D.
Renton, D. L. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Robson-Brown, W.


Deedes, W. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Roper, Sir Harold


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Donner, P. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leather, E. H. C.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Drewe, C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Scott, R. Donald


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Dunoan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


Duthie, W. S.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Erroll, F. J.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Snadden, W. McN.




Soames, Capt. C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Speir, R. M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W )
Watkinson, H. A.


Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S )
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Stevens, G. P.
Tilney, John
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Storey, S.
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wills, G.


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vosper, D. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Summers, G. S.
Wade, D. W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Sutcliffe, H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
York, C.


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)



Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Teeling, W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Studholme.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Edelman, M.
Kinley, J.


Adams, Richard
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Ewart, R.
Lewis, Arthur


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Lindgren, G. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Fienburgh, W.
Logan, D. G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Finch, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.


Baird, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McGhee, H G.


Balfour, A.
Follick, M.
McInnes, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Foot, M. M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bartley, P.
Forman, J. C.
McLeavy, F.


Beattie, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Freeman, John (Watford)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Bence, C. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Benn, Wedgwood
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Mainwaring, W. H.


Benson, G.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Beswick, F.
Glanville, James
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gooch, E. G.
Manuel, A. C.


Bing, G. H. C.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Blyton, W. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.


Boardman, H
Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Bowden, H. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morley, R.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Brockway, A. F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mort, D. L.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hannan, W.
Mulley, F. W


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hardy, E. A.
Murrey, J. D.


Burke, W. A.
Hargreaves, A.
Nally, W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hastings, S.
Noal-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Carmichael,
J. Hayman, F. H.
O'Brien, T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Healey, Denis (Leeds. S. E.)
Oldfield, W. H


Champion, A. J.
Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oliver, G. H.


Chapman, W. D
Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Oswald, T.


Clunie, J.
Holman, P.
Padley, W. E.


Coldrick, W.
Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Collick, P. H.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pannell, Charles


Crosland, C. A. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pargiter, G. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Parker, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Janner, B.
Paton, J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pearson, A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Peart, T. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Porter, G.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Proctor, W. T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Deer, G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rankin, John


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reeves, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Donnelly, D. L.
Keenan, W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Kenyon, C.
Rhodes, H.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Richards, R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon A.




Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Wells, William (Walsall)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Swingler, S. T.
West, D. G.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Sylvester, G. 0.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Ross, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Royle, C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Short, E. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wigg, George


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Willey, F. T.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Slater, J.
Thornton, E. (Farnworth)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Timmons, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Snow, J. W.
Tomney, F.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sparks, J. A.
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, W. L.


Steele, T.
Wallace, H. W.
Yates, V. F.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Watkins, T. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)



Strachey, Rt. Hon. J
Weitzman, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Half-past Ten o'Clock. The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (CALF SUBSIDIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

10.53 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: This is the first opportunity we have had of considering a scheme under the Act which we passed so recently as last month, but even at this hour of the night it is justifiable to spend some little time on the Scheme that is now before the House. I am glad that the Minister has included a point which we stressed about giving to Wales and to some of the hill districts of this country the same possibility of having their calves certified at six months. We are glad that the Minister has acceded to our request and has applied to other districts besides the Scottish areas the arrangements which in the first place it appeared would apply only to Scotland.
My next point concerns the certifying officers. Paragraph 5 (b) of the Scheme says that the Scheme is to be carried out by certifying officers appointed by the Minister. When the Act was going

through the House during the last month, we understood that this job would be done by full-time certifying officers. The words that are included in the Scheme are very vague indeed, and I cannot help wondering whether that is deliberate. If so, is it intended by the Minister that he should in the main use full-time certifying officers but that he should reserve the right to appoint part-time officers in some of the areas where that would be the more appropriate method?
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us in this connection what are the intentions—I hope they are honourable—of his right hon. Friend on the matter of the appointments of certifying officers in the country. We are also rather interested in the Scheme to be applied for the training of these officers. Has the Minister decided that some training should be given to them and that they shall be given some preparation for the job they have to do and in which they will have to try to set a standard for the whole country? Quite obviously, we do not want a situation arising in which a certifying officer in the South of the country will apply a different standard from that in the North, the East or West.
Has the Minister done anything at all about the training and, if so, has he had any experimental certifications, and with what results? Last Thursday some Questions were asked about what appeared to me to be experimental certifications. I am wondering what has been the experience of the Minister in the application of this policy and if there has been a sort of training period.


I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should tell us how many officers he proposes to appoint and what sort of areas he has in mind. The job of these officers certifying calves to be marked for the payment of this £5 subsidy, or rejected, is bound to be a very difficult one. I think that inevitable because there is little possibility of a narrower definition than that set out in paragraph (4) of the Scheme.
I think it right that there should be a reasonably high standard for, however generous the feeding later in life, it is impossible to make up for a bad start in the calf period. It is known by the better and more intelligent farmers that that is the case. Even if they did not know, the experiment which has been conducted at the University Farm at Cambridge has made that clear. It has proved beyond any doubt that the calf which has been well started makes very much better use of resources of available feedingstuffs than a calf which has had a bad start. We saw indications of this at the Royal Show at Cambridge last year, and I have read with interest the excellent paper given to the Farmers' Club by Mr. A. J. Brookes, who was in charge of this experiment at the University Farm.
From that experiment two points stand out. They are that calves which have done really well up to eight months and are then fed moderately well onwards in these days of dear concentrates show the greatest profit and undoubtedly the best use of resources available in the way of concentrates. Money spent on calf subsidies must be spent in encouraging feeding of calves which have had a really good start and a high standard must be maintained by the certifying officers.
I say that despite the fact that we shall all be receiving letters from farmers complaining that the certifying officers have rejected their calves. We in this House have to support the Minister and his certifying officers in this respect. We shall undoubtedly be pestered by some of the farmers, whose calves will be passed over and not rank for this £5 subsidy.
The second point which emerges from this Cambridge experiment, and it is one which leaves some doubt in my mind, is whether the Minister is right in leaving

heifer calves of the Friesian breed out of the payment of subsidy. If we are to have a considerable stepping up and expansion in the beef production in this country, it must come as a by-product of milk production.
The popularity of the Friesian breed is evidenced by the increases we have seen in these herds over the last half-century. At one time I rather wondered if we should reach a point when there were only black and white cattle in our fields; but, fortunately, that danger has passed. The fact remains we have such a number of Friesians in the country, in our herds, that they come second in point of numbers only to the Shorthorns.
For the purpose of the experiment, of which I have been speaking, Herefords, dairy Shorthorns, and Friesians were used. Of the calves from these three breeds, Mr. Brookes has this to say:
In each year the moderate plane calves"—
that is the calves fed only moderately well up to the age of eight months—
assumed what might be described as a 'dairy type' appearance showing narrow hind quarters and lack of second thigh. This has been common to all three breeds, indicating the important effect of nutrition on conformation. I have formed the opinion that much of the merit of beef breeds is due to nutrition, and the high plane of rearing in early life, and not so much to breeding as some would have us suppose. 'Half the breeding goes in at the mouth', in other words.
The Parliamentary Secretary will have considered that that is the result of an experiment conducted by his own officers, if I remember aright, on reasonably scientific lines. It must not be forgotten that the improved Friesian is a thick, deeper-bodied beast than used to be the case. I am of the opinion the Minister should either take this Scheme away and bring it back with Friesians excluded from paragraph 4, or he should really justify the inclusion of this breed in this Scheme before us.
If the Minister feels that the heifer calf of the Friesian breed will be reared in any case, why does he not apply the same criterion to the dairy Shorthorns? I have, for obvious reasons, tried to squeeze a lot into a short space of time; but, I do think we ought to have answers to some of these points. It is right that we should appeal to the Minister to keep the standard high because public money is to be spent on this Scheme, however much


it might be argued by the farmers that this is part of the Price Review payments. I think that the Minister ought to give some consideration to my points about the Friesian breed and consider carefully whether he ought not to withdraw this Scheme and bring in another, which would exclude the Friesians from paragraph 4.

11.5 p.m.

Colonel J. H. Harrison: I should like to elaborate a question which I asked the Minister last week, particularly in regard to paragraph 4 and the standards which are laid down, and the use of the phrase "reasonably well reared."
Great concern has been caused in agricultural circles in East Anglia following the demonstration at Cambridge at the end of October. There, about 30 farmers' representatives were shown by the livestock officer of the Minister's Department what standards were to be applied. In two days, they visited eight farms, and, of the calves seen, 80 to 90 per cent. were rejected as not being suitable for the subsidy. I had a report from a Suffolk farmer, who said that these were probably not a high quality lot, but, in his opinion, even in a good lot, only 40 per cent. would qualify for the subsidy.
Surely the whole point of this Scheme is to get extra beef, and, therefore, it is important to get the co-operation of the farmers and the farming community. If we take the points laid down, it seems to me that calves of the right breed and right type, if fleshy, would be the ones to qualify, in the opinion of the livestock officer, and that many of those of the right type and breed, such as Red Poll, Shorthorn and Hereford, would not qualify because they had not got sufficient flesh, although they might be of the right type and breed for making beef. Surely it is not baby beef that we want today. We cannot afford that. We want animals to go the full time which will give us the greatest quantity of beef for which the consumer has to pay.
Although the farmer can submit his calf two or three times before it cuts its first teeth, that throws a great strain on the certifying officers and farmers. At nine or 10 months, it should be possible to tell whether the calf will make good beef for the people of Britain. I understood that this Scheme was promoted to

encourage the production of more beef, but it is discouraging beef production, so much so that, in the headlines of one of our East Anglian local newspapers, we get, "This is not the way to get more beef."
I want to ask the Minister if the instructions given to his livestock officers are those which he has in mind in theory, because it is important to have the cooperation of those who are producing beef, and it does not seem to me that, at the present time, this Scheme has started on the right footing.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I should like to give general support to this Scheme, although I want to make a few observations about parts of it. If the Scheme is to succeed, the question of standards is all important. To use a local phrase, the farmers have to "do their calves well."
I do not regard this as just another subsidy, and, if it had been put forward in that way, I might have been critical of the main proposal in it. After all, to qualify for the subsidy, a calf has to be well reared, and I accept the suggestion that has been made that an applicant for the subsidy will have to spend the equivalent of the subsidy on the calf in order to qualify for it. I think the House will agree that we want more red beef. It is just as well that we should give as much encouragement as we can to those who are prepared to rear animals, and animals that would be likely to provide some reasonable quality beef.
I understand that calves which are rejected by the certifying officer will not be marked in any way. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether it will be possible to submit them for certification a second time when the officer next visits the farm. I gather also that provision will be made for an appeal against the decision of the certifying officer and that the county livestock husbandry officer will decide finally on the eligibility of the calf. To save having many appeals the farming community generally should be made well aware of the details of the Scheme and of what calves are and are not eligible. With those reservations and subject to replies from the Parliamentary Secretary, I give the Scheme my blessing.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Robert Crouch: I do not wish to delay the House very long but I have just one point to make. I think that it is very appropriate that this Scheme should be laid before the House in the middle of the week in which the Smithfield Fat Stock Show is being held and at which we have seen exhibited the finest beef that is produced in this country. The highest praise is due to the exhibitors and herdsmen at that show.
The point which I wish to make is that which I made on Second Reading of the Bill which became the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act, 1952, and which is reported in column 1011 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 25th July of this year. It has to do with the breeds of calves that are excluded from the Scheme. Paragraph 4 of the Scheme states that Jersey, Guernsey, Friesian or Ayrshire heifer calves shall be excluded. I mention this because I think that no one can suggest seriously that the Dexters and the Kerrys should be included. We look upon them as a breed used primarily for milk production.
Today, I looked particularly at the animals exhibited at the Smithfield Show. I saw that one Dexter heifer, aged one year and 9 months, weighed 2¼ cwt. Comparing that with the weights of our recognised beef breeds, we have a Devon at one year 10 months weighing 11½ cwt. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may say that it will be left to the discretion of the certifying officer to decide whether Dexter or Kerry calves are suitable for beef production, but I suggest that if it is left to his discretion there is bound to be a great deal of argument about it.

Mr. J. R. E. Harden: I have a Kerry cow which, at 2 years 9 months, scaled 11 cwt. and I cannot see anything against it.

Mr. Crouch: I am very pleased to hear that in Northern Ireland they are ready to make these animals a heavier weight than we are able to do here, but that is probably an exception and not the general rule. I should rather take the standard shown at the Smithfield Show today than the example the hon. Member quotes. We all make mistakes and it is

much wiser to heed warnings about troubles that may lie ahead and so avoid them.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, for his own sake and for the sake of the certifying officers and hon. Members, to consider seriously making the Dexter and Kerry calves ineligible under this Scheme. With that exception I welcome the Scheme wholeheartedly.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: The most encouraging thing I have heard about this Scheme so far came in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Colonel Harrison). I am very glad indeed, if it be the fact, that the inspectors are setting a high standard, because we must realise that if a farmer does a calf badly he will never catch up. It is the first year that matters, and I feel it would be a very great waste of public money if this subsidy was available for calves which had not been properly done in their first year. I hope that very high standard will be maintained.
The other point which interests me is this curious selection of the heifers of four breeds. I think the Parliamentary Secretary accepted a phrase of mine in Committee when I said that this was a pre-payment for beef which was actually coming forward. If that is really so why do we confine this exclusion of heifers to only four breeds? A great many heifers of other breeds have obviously been bred as dairy replacements and are going to be dairy replacements. Regardless of what breed they come from, will it be the instructions of the certifying officers not to certify heifers which have, in fact, been bred as dairy replacements and which, except as old cow beef, are never coming forward for grading at all?
The second question which I should like to put is, why does the Government only exclude heifers of some of these breeds? For instance, surely we are not going to pay subsidy on Jersey steer calves. Is the simple answer that no certifying officer would dream of certifying a Jersey steer calf, because if it is so, surely it ought to be made plain in the Scheme? Otherwise, some people will not understand it and will bring up Jersey steer calves and will be very disappointed at not getting a subsidy. If that is the idea it should be made clear.
Ayrshires and Guernseys may not be quite as plain, but I should have thought, on balance, it still right to say that Ayrshire steers and Guernsey steers are really a waste of food when our limitation is not the number of calves we can feed. I should have thought there would be no great harm done by excluding these two. On the other hand—and I am not a Friesian man—there is no question at all that the Friesians have developed a dual purpose type, which is what the country really needs. I do feel that any discrimination against Friesians as against the other breeds is a discouragement of this very valuable work done within the Friesian Society.

11.20 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I should like to support some of the points made by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) laid great emphasis on the necessity for a high standard of rearing in the early stages. That is most important, and I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what appeal there will be from the decisions of different certifying officers if they do not please the farmers.
Undoubtedly, it will be very difficult, and there will be a great difference of opinion when these certifying officers—who will be professional men—visit the farms and in some cases reject animals. There will be great dissatisfaction unless there is a really competent appeal authority. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point.
There is another point arising out of that. In some cases some areas will probably have a much higher standard of cattle than others. It is inevitable, no matter how well these certifying officers are trained, and it may well be that some areas will tend to sell and export cattle to other areas where it is more easy to get them past. We have seen that happen in certain cases with graded cattle, which are moved from one grading centre to another, and it may easily happen that there will be just the same traffic in calves, which I think would be a very bad thing.
I think the House knows my interest in farming. If not, perhaps I had better declare it. I have had the honour to be on the Council of the Friesian Cattle Society for many years. I think it is

most unfortunate that Jersey and Guernsey steer calves are permitted to pass if they are sufficiently well reared. As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, it would be very wrong if the Ministry in any way encouraged or connived at the rearing of Jersey steer calves for beef. If the Ministry gives a subsidy on those—as they say they will—it will be an encouragement, and it certainly should not be done.
During recent years, when more beef has been acquired, the Friesian steer has shown itself to be a very valuable animal for beef purposes, especially the heavier type which has been introduced fairly recently. If the Friesian steer makes good beef and should be encouraged for that purpose it seems to me quite unfair that the Friesian-type heifer should be excluded.
Before this Scheme was introduced I believe that consultations took place with the National Farmers' Union; but no consultations took place with the British Friesian Cattle Society, which is, naturally, the authority for this breed. Incidentally, it is the largest cattle-breeding society in this country, and it is also the richest, because it has the best cattle. For that reason it would have been a just and proper thing for them to have been consulted. There will be many heifers of the Friesian type, though not Friesians themselves, which should be included but which will be excluded under this Scheme—many cattle which might be reared for beef and would make every bit as good beef as Shorthorn cattle.
That leads me to the difficulty of the certifying officers in saying which Shorthorn cattle will make good beef and are to have the subsidy. I submit that it largely depends on how a Shorthorn is reared in its first few months—whether it is beef bred or dairy bred. This offers too much of an element of chance. It would be better if this Scheme had been much more closely drawn, and less was left to the opinion of the certifying officers. Another aspect I dislike is that it may encourage a great deal of crossbreeding. During the last 10 years the cattle of this country have improved enormously. As one passes herds on farms one sees far less variation in the cattle, and far better bred cattle. In many areas that is due to the great work done by the artificial insemination


centres. Unless the Ministry is careful, that good breeding will lose ground and diminish.
For that reason I should like the Minister to consider this Scheme carefully before it is put into operation. If the Minister wishes to increase the steer cattle reared for beef, I suggest that he should give the subsidy for steer cattle only, and not for heifers. The increased number of heifers reared for beef through the subsidy will be small. It would be better if a larger subsidy were given to steer cattle only.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) in this breed controversy. I want to reinforce what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) about standards. We have heard a great deal this evening about the necessity for care in rearing calves in the early stages. I think everyone will agree that that is borne out by experience. Surely the purpose of this subsidy was to get more calves reared from among those coming from the dairy herds. That was the only reason for it. The number of young cattle was falling, and people were not disposed to rear calves. The subsidy was put on as an inducement which, we are told, is to produce 400,000 extra cattle.
Although it is important that cattle should be reared well in the early stages, does anyone think that a person buying calves will not have to buy some which are not of the full, thick flesh type which he would always like to have? I was dismayed to hear of the report of the test made in the Cambridge area. I am told that out of 240 animals examined, only 11 were passed for subsidy. If that were so, it would mean that the subsidy would be ineffective for the purpose for which it was intended. I cannot believe that the cattle seen were all that bad. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what the standards are which are being applied—the general grounds on which the certifying officers have been instructed to select or reject calves. A great responsibility lies in their hands. We do not want bad calves certified, but, on the other hand, we do not want these officers

to be unduly stingy, or the real purpose of the subsidy will be defeated by too large a number of rejections.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I am glad to hear that the certifying officers are being trained. For the work they will have to do they need to have some training in self-defence. From what has already been said, it appears that some farmers will become very dissatisfied indeed and some may become dangerous.
We all know the tremendous advantage of rearing calves properly in the early stages, but there is a more important factor prior to the rearing, and that is the breeding. If we are going in for beef, then we should breed from beef. The Scheme is illogical. It is supposedly a beef Scheme, for beef cattle, and yet Jerseys, Guernseys and Ayrshires, none of them beef animals, are included in it. I fail to see how the Ministry can justify this.

11.32 p.m.

Captain Christopher Soames: It is evident that it is only paragraph 4 of the Scheme which has caused any difference of opinion in the House; otherwise, there is a general measure of agreement. Paragraph 4 says:
The description of calf specified in this Scheme is any steer or heifer calf, except a heifer calf of the Jersey, Guernsey, Friesian or Ayrshire breeds …
How much simpler it would have been to say, "The description of calf specified in this Scheme is any steer or heifer calf sired by a bull of any known beef breed …"
Many people who champion different breeds can argue that it is worth while rearing an Ayrshire or a Friesian steer, but I do not believe it is. I believe it is a waste of food to endeavour to raise a steer if neither its father nor its mother was of an acknowledged beef breed. I would be the first to agree that an excellent beef animal can be obtained from a Hereford out of a Friesian cow, but I do not believe that the feed given to a Friesian steer will produce a first quality beef animal.

Mr. Harden: Surely that is proved to be completely incorrect by the Friesian steers which have been reared on the Royal estates at Windsor?

Captain Soames: I am convinced that if the same amount of food had been given to an animal sired by a bull of an acknowledged beef breed the weight obtained would have been very much greater.

Mr. Harden: Does my hon. and gallant Friend know the weights which have been achieved? If he examines the results in a little more detail and finds the facts he will discover that he is wrong in what he is pointing out to the House. It is certainly extremely questionable whether he is right.

Captain Soames: Perhaps my hon. Friend has found the exception that proves the rule.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Friesian steers have made bigger weights than any Hereford has ever made?

Captain Soames: I cannot accept that.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider, instead of holding out to farmers that a Jersey or Guernsey steer might be included for subsidy, stipulating that all animals to be considered for subsidy, whether they be heifers or steers, shall be sired by a bull of an acknowledged beef breed.

11.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): This little Scheme has provoked a great deal of discussion which has been of interest to the House and which has shown with what importance it is regarded by hon. Members.
If I might, before coming to the major point about standards, I would deal with the lesser question raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion); that is, the point about certifying officers. He asked if they would be employed full-time, and I would remind the House that that point was answered when the Act was passing through, but I will repeat that, normally, they will be in full-time employment in England and Wales.
In Northern Ireland, the existing advisory officers will undertake the certifying work. We feel it is desirable to draft the Scheme in this way to allow some elasticity; but, normally, they will work full-time. We have engaged 90, of which number 83 are for normal duties.

and the remaining seven will operate from the centre, being available to go to any part of the country where there is a particular congestion of applications so that certification may be speeded.
On the question of excluding heifers of certain breeds, and the Friesian in particular, the point is that this Scheme is one to encourage the breeding of calves for beef and the rearing of calves for beef so that more beef may be brought to our tables. The heifer of the Friesian breed is a good bodied animal. But, in practice, almost invariably—I would say in 99 per cent. of the cases—it is, in fact, reared for the dairy. Therefore, if the subsidy went to the Friesian heifer, by far the greater part of the money would go as a subsidy for milk; and this particular award is specifically to encourage beef breeding.
On the general question of breeds, and the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) as to whether the Channel Islands breeds should be included for steer calves, the general standard we shall adopt is to ask whether the calf will make a good beef animal. It is true that most steers of Channel Islands breed will not; but it is possible to have something with quite a deal of Channel Islands blood in it, and with certain Channel Islands features, which might, all the same, make a reasonably good beef animal. Therefore, we have left them all in, leaving it to the certifying officer to say whether, in fact, any of the Channel Islands breeds do qualify.
This brings me to the suggestion which was made about the qualification being judged by reference to the animal which sired the calf. Here I would say that when one comes to look at the calf at, say 18 months of age, and with so many calves cross-bred, it would be almost impossible to say with any certainty what had sired many of them. The kind of argument which would inevitably develop would be that the farmer would say that the sire was a beef breed and, of course, the certifying officer would say that the dam was, and so it would go on. It really would not be a practical standard to apply.

Captain Soames: The animal would still, of course, have to pass the test and he of good shape and frame.

Mr. Nugent: The test finally must be that the animal conforms to the standards for which the certifying officer is looking, and for that reason we have allowed any steer but have specifically excluded certain heifers, which will, obviously, in the main be reared for dairy replacements.
The hon. and learned Member asked whether the certifying officers will be instructed specifically to exclude heifers which are being reared for dairy replacements. The answer is that, as a general principle, that will be the case; but when they are judging the heifer of a dual purpose breed it would be impossible for them to say with certainty that the heifer would not be brought into the dairy herd. It is quite possible to have a heifer from the Shorthorn or one of the other dual purpose breeds which is well conformed for beef considerations but, nevertheless, is a good milker. So, in practice, all that the certifying officers can do is to use their judgment to say whether the animal is the type of heifer which would make good beef. After that, it must be left—

Mr. Paget: What I have in mind is a dairy Shorthorn pedigree herd where it is perfectly obvious that the heifers are perfectly suitable to make good beef, but that they will not go to make beef but will be used as dairy replacements. Is that a matter which the certifying officers will take into consideration, not as to their suitability but as to the purpose for which they are, in fact, to be used?

Mr. Nugent: I should not like to lay down a hard and fast answer, because in practice, although the certifying officer might think that the heifer was going into the herd, it is still possible that it would not. I think that as regards the dual purpose breeds, we can but leave it at the definition that I have indicated, that the animal will be judged on her Conformation and that if she is of a type which would make good beef, she will qualify. If she is not, she will not qualify. Once we try to determine what will happen to her next year, we are in the realms of the unknown.
Hon. Members have also raised the general problem of the arrangements for the certification of calves. In the interval since the passing of the Act some preparatory work has been done, and in each

province the chief provincial livestock officer has arranged a demonstration, running over several farms, with all the livestock certifying officers and with members of the N.F.U., the C.L.A. and the C.A.E.C.s, in order to demonstrate in practice what sort of standard would be required. In choosing the farms which would be visited, the provincial livestock officers, naturally, chose farms where they thought they might find a fairly large number of borderline cases, which would be of assistance to them in demonstrating the sort of problems that would be met.
In most provinces, this exercise has gone satisfactorily. It has done what we expected it would do. It has explained to the farming community how the Scheme would work and has given the certifying officers a chance to see how it will operate in practice, and it has undoubtedly given confidence generally in the Scheme. It is true that there have been some complaints, in particular from the Eastern Counties. I will not attempt to analyse the figures given by my hon. Friends who have drawn attention to this, but the fact that farms where a large number of borderline cases were known to exist had been chosen does show that the figures are not by any means representative.
Since we heard the result of that exercise, we have arranged for the deputy chief livestock officer of the Department to go into the country and go round for two weeks to farms which had been visited by the certifying officers to inspect the calves which had already been inspected for certification and, as a result, a certain number of calves have been certified which before had been rejected and the standard which the certifying officers concerned had adopted has been revised to a more satisfactory level.

Mr. Bullard: I hope that some publicity will be given to this, because it seems to me that already some considerable damage has been done to the success of the Scheme in the Eastern Counties. I think it is a reflection on the standard of cattle in the Eastern Counties which is not justified.

Mr. George Brown: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to his hon. Friend, will he allow me to say that in many ways I think this is disturbing. If the story gets about that these certifying


officers who, after all, are not very high-grade men, are liable to have their decisions overturned in any county if the farmers kick up enough fuss in that county, it is likely to lead to an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I should like the hon. Gentleman to let it be known that this is exceptional action and that he is not proposing to take it in any other county.

Mr. Nugent: I am quite certain that if publication is needed there is no better place than this in which to give it, even at this time of the night, and the terms in which I explained the action taken are I think sufficient to ensure that the fear of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) will not materialise.
Great care was taken by a very senior officer to check this work and to ensure that a correct standard was found. We fully recognise that it is a difficult job to do and the last thing we wish to do is to shake the confidence of the certifying officers. These men, in the main, have been practical farmers and nearly all were part-time certifying officers under the old Scheme and have a great deal of practical experience. In the main, I think they are capable of carrying out a very difficult job. Since receiving these reports, my right hon. Friend and I have reviewed the whole picture of the certification of the calves and, in the light of those reports, my right hon. Friend has given instructions that standards of certification shall be fairly applied to admit all calves within the terms of the Scheme which have a reasonable prospect of making good beef.
We shall watch the position very carefully. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have given emphasis to the need for maintaining a reasonably high standard and I am sure that that is what we all wish. On the other hand, we certainly do not wish to set up a standard so high as to discourage farmers from coming forward and rearing more calves. I believe that we have now a standard established in the minds of certifying officers and that we shall, by having full-time officers who, through the provincial livestock officers, are related to the national livestock officers, ensure uniformity throughout the country. I think we have a standard which will ensure fairness to the farmer and a fair return to the consumer. I therefore ask that

the House should give approval to the Scheme.

Mr. Crouch: May I ask what the Minister proposes to do about the two miniature breeds? Are those heifer calves to be excluded as well as the others?

Mr. Nugent: I am sorry that I omitted to give the answer. They will be treated on the same basis as dual purpose breeds. It is true that, in the main, they are used for the dairy, but occasionally they make beef and if they come into beef in spite of their smaller size they will be treated fairly when they come to the grading centres.
Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House or 21st November, he approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme. 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.—[Mr. Snadden.]

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: It would be idle to pretend that we have not listened to the discussion on the English Scheme. We assume that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be most anxious to maintain in Scotland a high standard in the certifications which will be made. He has always argued for encouraging quality production. He will not have changed and will not be anxious to have the certifying officers too readily certifying animals which are not likely to yield good carcases when they are slaughtered.
It seems clear that a great number of heifer calves of dual purpose breeds will qualify for the subsidy and will then be filtered into the dairy herds. I think that is regrettable and a great pity. It means that milk production is going to enjoy a subsidy under this Scheme, although all this money is calculated to give encouragement to the production of beef. But I doubt whether there is very much we can do about it now. The Secretary of State will find it difficult, at this stage, to dissent from the views of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and withdraw the Scottish Scheme to discuss this point.
It is clear that the Parliamentary Secretary, and I suppose the Government, know full well that only a very small number of the steers of these Channel Islands breeds would ever qualify for a subsidy under this Scheme. It is a great pity they are included. However, I merely take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with the views offered in discussing the area Scheme.
One point I want to mention is the proviso to paragraph 5 of the Scheme which provides that, in the case of a calf born in the spring in the hill area, it may be certified at a minimum age of six months. I can see that the intention is to provide that the subsidy will be paid to the farmer in the hill area who actually breeds the animal. From my experience in office, I know there has always been great criticism of the earlier schemes because it was not the farmers in the hill areas who received the subsidy, but the farmers on the lower land. It was always said it was the breeder who ought to enjoy the subsidy.
I should like the Under-Secretary to tell me whether he thinks that the farmers in the hill lands, in the Highlands of Scotland, will be able to enjoy these subsidies, with certification taking place at the minimum age of six months. My recollection is that a very great number of these calves are born in April and May, and that the calf sales take place at the end of September or quite early in October, but, again, I think a very great number of these calves are sold at the calf sales when just under, and only just under, six months old, whereas this Scheme states that the minimum age for certification is six months.
However, the Under-Secretary may be able to convince me that I am wrong in my recollections, and I ask him if he will say something about the matter when he replies to the debate.

11.56 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: There are two points I wish to raise on this Scheme. I do not propose to labour the question of a high standard, as English hon. Members have done, because I do not think it is necessary. In Scotland, we have a high standard already. Therefore, I do not think there will be very much difficulty, as a general rule, at any rate, in the beef areas, for

the certifying officers to certify calves without any argument at all.
The first point is on the question of an appeal. I raised it on a previous occasion, when we were discussing this matter on the Second Reading of the 1952 Bill. I want to protect myself, as a Member of Parliament, from being asked by farmers to look at their calves, and I am quite sure that other hon. Members who may be similarly placed will be feeling like me. What sort of appeal is there to be? The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), speaking on the English Scheme, said there was to be some form of appeal. I should like to know what form that appeal will take.
On the previous occasion when I spoke I used the analogy of the seed potato scheme, in which the certifying officer came along, and, if there was any argument, the farmer paid another fee, and a senior inspector came to decide whether the junior inspector was right or wrong. Is that sort of thing to be done in this case, though, of course, without payment of a fee? We want a safeguard like that to prevent arguments taking place between the farmers and the officers, and I am sure the whole Scheme will work more freely if farmers know that, if a young fellow came along and said, "No, I am not going to certify your calf," there would be somebody senior to him whom the farmer could hold in higher regard.
The second point concerns calves in the Highlands. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has already referred to the proviso in paragraph 5 of the Scheme. As hon. Members know, I breed them, and I have a form of application for the subsidy in my hand, sent to me by the Department. In the leaflet accompanying the form, nothing at all is said about the six months business, which is referred to in the first paragragh of the Scheme, and there is no explanation of how one can apply for the special permission of the Secretary of State to get the certifying officer earlier than seven months. At the head of the form it is stated:
This application form should be completed when your calves have reached the age of seven months.
There is no provision made in the leaflet or on the form for any special arrangements to be made for the hill calf.
What special arrangements are to be made in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Scheme? This is very important and may make a lot of difference to hill farming. I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that if these calves are born in March or April it is going to be a rather tight thing to get them marked before they are sold at the autumn sales. It may be that the autumn sales could be put back a fortnight. I do not know. I want to stress the point that to make the subsidy work properly the producer, the breeder of the calf, is the man who ought to receive the subsidy rather than the feeder, if we can possibly manage it. I hope, therefore, that special arrangements will be made.
It is stated on the form that one cannot send the form in until the youngest of the batch of calves one wants marked is seven months' old. That cannot possibly work in the case of the Highland calf. I want an alternative form, making the seven months a period of four or five months in the case of the Highland calf so that the Secretary of State will have time to satisfy himself that there is no winter keep on the farm and that the calf is to be sold at the autumn sale. I hope, therefore, that in his reply the Under-Secretary will say that something like that is being done.
Finally, although this £5 subsidy on all suitable steer calves and all beef-type heifer calves is to be given as a result of the Price Review, nevertheless it is taxpayers' money. I hope, therefore, that in the administration of the Scheme the farmers will realise that it is taxpayers' money that they are receiving and that they will take refusals, if refusals have to be made, in the spirit in which this Scheme is produced, which is that it is designed for the specific purpose of producing more beef. Farmers, broadly speaking, should accept the decisions of the certifying officers in the spirit in which the Government are putting forward the Scheme.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: It seems to me that paragraph 4 of this Scheme is probably as good as anything can be in this rather imperfect world. It may have to be altered in the light of experience but, read as a whole, it seems a fair beginning for the Scheme, especially as I take it that the words of

the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he wound up the Second Reading debate on the 1952 Bill will be read with it. The hon. Gentleman said on that occasion:
With regard to dairy cattle, and in case anyone is in any doubt, I should say that any animal from a single purpose dairy cow by a colour marked bull or by a beef bull—in Scotland, we do not recognise colour marking—will rank for subsidy if it passes inspection. I am talking, of course, about heifers."— [OFFICIAL, REPORT, 25th July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 1032.]
I, too, felt that paragraph 5 (c) and the proviso to it will have to be looked at again. I can confirm what the hon. Member for Hamilton said, out of the mouth, so to speak, of the Under-Secretary because in that same debate the Under-Secretary said that most of the calves in the hill areas were born in April and went to market in October. If my arithmetic is right that leaves only five clear months. If it is desired, as the Under-Secretary said in that debate that it was, that the breeder should receive the subsidy, it really is not enough time, especially as the area to be covered by the inspectors is very scattered. If the time is not altered it will be simply impossible for them to get round between the end of the six months and the sale, unless the Minister is to have an army of inspectors.
Those are the only points which I wish to make on this Scheme which, otherwise, I wholly welcome.

12.5 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): Perhaps I should deal with the general question that has been raised by the three hon. Members about the hill calves, as this is of particular importance from the Scottish point of view. I may have said many calves were born in April, but they come in the hill areas in February, March, and April. They are getting late in May. These are the three principal months, and it is our hope and intention to see that these calves are marked before they go to the autumn sales and that the breeder in the hills receives the subsidy. It may be that a few late calves in May will be left out but when they are sent off they carry the subsidy when sold in the store ring.
The hon. and gallant Member for Angus (Captain Duncan) raised the


question of the form. It is quite true the application form he has does mention seven months, but if he looks at paragraph 7 of the slip inside he will see a mention of the six months' marking. However, we realise that this difficulty exists, and I should like to assure him that between now and the spring there is ample time to deal with it and that we intend to take the necessary action. We have a complete register from the last calf subsidy and we intend to give a specific intimation to the people concerned. This is a general form, 50,000 of which have already gone out. There is an exception in the case of those on the hills, and they will get special treatment. We are now trying to find out the best way of doing this. It is a tricky problem and one which perhaps cannot be solved by an announcement over the B.B.C. or in the Press.
On the question of appeal raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, I think the best answer is that where there is a dispute and a breeder has had a calf rejected by the certifying officer, the officer will appeal to the senior area officer of the Department of Agriculture. In that way the appeal will be the same as in England and Wales.
The point made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) related to Channel Islands breeds. To be perfectly frank, this is not as great a significance in Scotland as it is in England. We do not have the same problem of dual purpose cattle. Rightly or wrongly, we have bred for beef or milk, and we do not anticipate quite as much difficulty as may occur south of the Border.
So far our certification has worked well. We have a very highly skilled

inspectorate of full-time officers who worked through the last subsidy, and up to date no complaints of any kind have reached the Department. We are getting on with the work. There may be a little delay, because we have to catch up with the accumulation of calves born since October, 1951. When we get through that we are hopeful that we shall get abreast of this Scheme and that we shall be making payment within about a fortnight from the date of certification. In the remoter areas it may take a little longer, but I hope that it will not exceed 30 days.

Mr. T. Fraser: When the Minister says that as far as the Channel Islands breeds are concerned they are not much of a problem in Scotland I think he is absolutely right. There will not be more than a handful of steer calves of those breeds offered for certification; but that makes it all the more surprising that there is provision in the Scheme for the breeders of that mere handful of those calves to offer them for certification.

Mr. Snadden: There may be some in Scotland and we have to provide for that contingency to keep ourselves in line with the Scheme for England and Wales.

Resolved,

That the Draft Calf Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes past Twelve o'Clock, a.m.